Found this to be very interesting (about KSU fouling Dok intentionally)

Connecting to this thread started by Hawknmo ( www.rockchalk.com/index.php/forum/basket...he-end-of-poke-a-dok )
where he asked if we've seen the end of poke-a-Doke, it seems based on the quote below, that we would not have if not for the refs intervening.

K-State coach Bruce Weber said the Wildcats planned to foul Azubuike in a similar manner but were told by officials before the game that any intentional fouls needed to be in the flow of the action or else they would be called as flagrant, which would have given KU two free throws and possession of the ball.

www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-tait/2018...row-form-a-step-in-/

Good find.

It's often up to the ref's discretion whether a foul is flagrant outside of certain well-defined parameters. For example, a flagrant 1 is usually involving an elbow (even inadvertent) especially when contact is above the shoulders. It's also a flagrant 1 if you intentionally foul a guy to stop a breakaway (i.e. grab a jersey, etc.). Flagrant 2 is usually some kind of "unsportsmanlike" deal where it's clearly outside of the game as it's being played: throwing a punch, contact after a dead ball, etc.

Nevertheless, it's up to the ref's discretion on the flagrant 1 example of stopping a breakaway. If you grab a guy to keep him from gonig on a fast break, that's an easy call. If you "try to draw a charge" and you both go down, it's a judgement call.

Based on this, it's still up to the refs to decide if the hacker in the hack-a-Dok is guilty. It's also up to the ref to make the call, so if you slap Dok's wrist 80' from the ball or basket, it might be a non-call. Nevertheless, just like the refs became aware of the Marcus Smart's flopping antics a few years ago, the refs have made it known that if you're going to hack Dok, you'd better make it look good.

Hmmmmm...very interesting.....Think its possible a HOF coach made a call to the league office?

Doubt it was necessary. When Marcus Smart was doing his European soccer player impersonations, the refs were aware and took care of it. If anything, it sounds like the refs did the smart thing and gave the coaches a warning ahead of time to avoid the issue entirely.

NotO or anyone - does the NCAA rule book specifically address intentional fouls (except for the breakaway scenario). I scanned thru it and came up empty. To be clear, if it doesn't, I think it should. The announcers mentioned that all three officials had had Final Four experience. Higgins is the only one I know anything about - he is no nonsense guy.

From a 2011 article on rules changes:

Fouls language
The panel also approved a change in nomenclature on fouls that are deemed more severe than a “common” foul in both men’s and women’s basketball. The terms “Flagrant 1” and “Flagrant 2” will now be used. A Flagrant 1 foul takes the place of an intentional foul[/u] and the Flagrant 2 foul replaces the previous flagrant foul.

An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be when a player swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball. Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word “intentional,” because a player’s intent was never the point to the rule.

An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be when a player swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.

Here's the link: www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-05-26/prop-approves-rules-changes

Seems it's a matter of semantics. Also, "intent" is somewhat irrelevant. A foul is a foul whether it was accidental or on purpose. Flagrant seems like a more accurate description.

Link to 2017-18 rule book - is some work to actually get to if from here - I downloaded the PDF version. http://www.ncaa.org/playing-rules/mens-basketball-rules-game
Found (page 50 of 146) under Rule 4 - Definitions, Section 15. Foul, Art.2.c - Flagrant 1 personal foul: "A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in, and
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (See Rule 4-18.7)."
Note the "Examples include, but are not limited to" phrase above. #'s 2 & 4 are close to the Dok scenario - just substitute
"specifically designed to foul a player who can't hit a frickin free throw" and we're there.

So we know that KSU was warned not to try it. Wondering if the league office realized after the fact that OU should have been called for a flagrant 1 and weren't, then put word out to the refs to look out for this.

In the end, it's still going to come down to the ref's judgement whether the foul is legitimate or as described in #2 or #4. It's already clear from watching guys foul at the end of games to stop the clock that as long as it LOOKS good they'll let it go.

I mean come on: you get some guard who's played 39 minutes without getting called for a reach in in the backcourt, and then he suddenly "forgets" how to guard and racks up 3 fouls in 20 seconds?!?

So for hack-a-Dok to work going forward, you really have to sell it, I guess.

Now that I've actually read the rule, I tend to agree. I can understand them getting away with the first one, or even 2, but after that is was clear.

Now it's going to bug me whenever I see guys fouling to stop the clock, because technically speaking it's a violation too.