[CompSci87]

A few seasons ago, NCAA WBB renamed flagrant 1 and 2 to "intentional" and "disqualifying", respectively. I think NCAA MBB still uses the "flagrant" terminology.

I'm pretty sure Murekatete's foul was ruled intentional, not disqualifying. I think I remember the announcers said so, plus it didn't seem bad enough to me to be disqualifying. In the play-by-play available online it's listed as a technical foul, but that's clearly incorrect, as the rules define a technical foul as a non-contact foul. But the penalty for an intentional versus a player technical foul is similar, so they are often confused by announcers, and maybe by game statisticians too.

Personally I think the renaming was a bad idea because the word "intentional" is badly chosen and misleading. The criteria for an intentional foul have (almost*) nothing to do with intent, only on the physical act. For example, it's not necessarily an "intentional" foul when you foul a player on purpose to stop the clock or send them to the line to get possession back, etc. (*"Almost" because a couple of the subcases in the rules have the word "designed" in them, which implies intent. Most of them don't. See rules quoted below.)

The video is a good example of one kind of intentional foul (see rules below): "Illegal contact caused by the swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary". (It also looked like a cheap shot delivered on purpose just to hurt or intimidate, but for one thing we don't know what was in Murekatete's mind, and for another that doesn't matter -- it was intentional under the rules because of the physical act, not because of mental intent.) There are also other kinds of intentional foul that the video doesn't illustrate, so the video isn't prototypical of all intentional fouls.

 Section 13. Intentional Foul
Art. 1. An intentional foul is a player-contact foul which, in the judgment of the official, is:
a. Not a legitimate attempt to make a direct play on the ball;
b. Contact designed to negate an opponent’s obvious advantageous position;
c. Contact away from the ball against an opponent who is clearly not involved in the play, designed to stop the game clock or prevent it from starting;
d. Contacting an opponent making a throw-in. This act shall also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary. (See Rule 4-9.1.g.);
e. Excessive, hard and/or unnecessary contact against an opponent; and
f. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary.

In the quote above, it seems to me that the "and" at the end of (e) should be "or" -- the foul doesn't have to meet all six of these criteria, just any one of them.

However, (a) is pretty stiff, and (b) is vague. I think if taken very literally by the refs, they could result in some "intentional foul" calls that would surprise most players and coaches and that (IMO) would be an excessive penalty. Players have seen NBA games where a player lightly "tags" another player who has the ball, not actually making a play on the ball, with the intent of being called for a common foul, and they're likely to be surprised if that gets called an intentional foul under point (a). That might be what happened to Louisville yesterday. The video of the Louisville/Syracuse game shows light contact that at least was reaching toward the ball. By the way, both Walz and the writer of the article I linked seem to think the foul was ruled intentional because the foul was made intentionally -- they should check the current rulebook, and they'd have a better case that the refs made a bad call.

Section 14. Disqualifying Foul
Art. 1. A disqualifying foul is any flagrant misconduct by any player or bench personnel. (1) When it is a contact foul, the contact is judged to be violent and/or severe. (2) When it is a noncontact foul, the unacceptable conduct of the individual is judged to be persistent, extreme, vulgar and/or abusive. Examples include, but are not limited to:
a. When a player or substitute:
1. Participates after changing their uniform number without reporting the change to the official scorer and an official.
2. Participates after having been disqualified.
3. Leaves the playing court and goes into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out.
4. Flagrantly contacts an opponent.
5. Engages in a fight, as in Rule 10-15.
6. Disrespectfully contacts an official.
7. Possesses or uses tobacco.
b. When bench personnel:
1. Leave the bench area when a fight may break out or has broken out. The head coach and any number of assistant coaches may leave the bench area in this case to prevent the situation from escalating.
2. Engage in a fight, as in Rule 10-15.
3. Disrespectfully contact an official.
4. Cause contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable, excessive or extreme
during a live or dead ball.
5. Possess or use tobacco.

I should really check the WBB casebook to see if it clarifies the rules further. But I've spent too much time on this post already...

[CompSci87]

A few seasons ago, NCAA WBB renamed flagrant 1 and 2 to "intentional" and "disqualifying", respectively. I think NCAA MBB still uses the "flagrant" terminology.

I'm pretty sure Murekatete's foul was ruled intentional, not disqualifying. I think I remember the announcers said so, plus it didn't seem bad enough to me to be disqualifying. In the play-by-play available online it's listed as a technical foul, but that's clearly incorrect, as the rules define a technical foul as a non-contact foul. But the penalty for an intentional versus a player technical foul is similar, so they are often confused by announcers, and maybe by game statisticians too.

Personally I think the renaming was a bad idea because the word "intentional" is badly chosen and misleading. The criteria for an intentional foul have (almost*) nothing to do with intent, only on the physical act. For example, it's not necessarily an "intentional" foul when you foul a player on purpose to stop the clock or send them to the line to get possession back, etc. (*"Almost" because a couple of the subcases in the rules have the word "designed" in them, which implies intent. Most of them don't. See rules quoted below.)

The video is a good example of one kind of intentional foul (see rules below): "Illegal contact caused by the swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary". (It also looked like a cheap shot delivered on purpose just to hurt or intimidate, but for one thing we don't know what was in Murekatete's mind, and for another that doesn't matter -- it was intentional under the rules because of the physical act, not because of mental intent.) There are also other kinds of intentional foul that the video doesn't illustrate, so the video isn't prototypical of all intentional fouls.

 Section 13. Intentional Foul
Art. 1. An intentional foul is a player-contact foul which, in the judgment of the official, is:
a. Not a legitimate attempt to make a direct play on the ball;
b. Contact designed to negate an opponent’s obvious advantageous position;
c. Contact away from the ball against an opponent who is clearly not involved in the play, designed to stop the game clock or prevent it from starting;
d. Contacting an opponent making a throw-in. This act shall also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary. (See Rule 4-9.1.g.);
e. Excessive, hard and/or unnecessary contact against an opponent; and
f. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary.

In the quote above, it seems to me that the "and" at the end of (e) should be "or" -- the foul doesn't have to meet all six of these criteria, just any one of them.

However, (a) is pretty stiff, and (b) is vague. I think if taken very literally by the refs, they could result in some "intentional foul" calls that would surprise most players and coaches and that (IMO) would be an excessive penalty. Players have seen NBA games where a player lightly "tags" another player who has the ball, not actually making a play on the ball, with the intent of being called for a common foul, and they're likely to be surprised if that gets called an intentional foul under point (a). That might be what happened to Louisville yesterday. The video of the Louisville/Syracuse game shows light contact that at least was reaching toward the ball. By the way, both Walz and the writer of the article I linked seem to think the foul was ruled intentional because the foul was made intentionally -- they should check the current rulebook, and they'd have a better case that the refs made a bad call.

Section 14. Disqualifying Foul
Art. 1. A disqualifying foul is any flagrant misconduct by any player or bench personnel. (1) When it is a contact foul, the contact is judged to be violent and/or severe. (2) When it is a noncontact foul, the unacceptable conduct of the individual is judged to be persistent, extreme, vulgar and/or abusive. Examples include, but are not limited to:
a. When a player or substitute:
1. Participates after changing their uniform number without reporting the change to the official scorer and an official.
2. Participates after having been disqualified.
3. Leaves the playing court and goes into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out.
4. Flagrantly contacts an opponent.
5. Engages in a fight, as in Rule 10-15.
6. Disrespectfully contacts an official.
7. Possesses or uses tobacco.
b. When bench personnel:
1. Leave the bench area when a fight may break out or has broken out. The head coach and any number of assistant coaches may leave the bench area in this case to prevent the situation from escalating.
2. Engage in a fight, as in Rule 10-15.
3. Disrespectfully contact an official.
4. Cause contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable, excessive or extreme
during a live or dead ball.
5. Possess or use tobacco.

I should really check the WBB casebook to see if it clarifies the rules further. But I've spent too much time on this post already...

[81alum]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

[81alum]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

[Goose]

<snip>
  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

IMO there needs to be some kind of more serious punishment for actions like Muraketete performed. It isn't just an "intentional" foul. It is literally a criminal assault. If Muraketete just walked up to a player before the start of the game and punched them in the mouth, it would be the equivalent situation. It was in no way "part of the game" or "incidental" to the game. The conference should have the power after reviewing the video record to suspend the offending player for any period they chose, including indefinitely. If the concept of "student athlete" has any meaning at all, a message needs to be sent that this kind of conduct (on or off the court) is not acceptable and will be severely sanctioned, .

[Goose]

<snip>
  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

IMO there needs to be some kind of more serious punishment for actions like Muraketete performed. It isn't just an "intentional" foul. It is literally a criminal assault. If Muraketete just walked up to a player before the start of the game and punched them in the mouth, it would be the equivalent situation. It was in no way "part of the game" or "incidental" to the game. The conference should have the power after reviewing the video record to suspend the offending player for any period they chose, including indefinitely. If the concept of "student athlete" has any meaning at all, a message needs to be sent that this kind of conduct (on or off the court) is not acceptable and will be severely sanctioned, .

[ca245]

Is there in BB the equivalent of the football disqualification where you must sit out one half of the next game?

[ca245]

Is there in BB the equivalent of the football disqualification where you must sit out one half of the next game?

[CompSci87]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

Yes. So you understand correctly.

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

There's no automatic penalty that lasts beyond the current game.

The team or (I believe) the conference could decide to suspend a player for really bad behavior. That would be judged case by case.

[CompSci87]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

Yes. So you understand correctly.

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

There's no automatic penalty that lasts beyond the current game.

The team or (I believe) the conference could decide to suspend a player for really bad behavior. That would be judged case by case.

[crackpot]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

Yes. So you understand correctly.

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

There's no automatic penalty that lasts beyond the current game.

The team or (I believe) the conference could decide to suspend a player for really bad behavior. That would be judged case by case.

Before they changed the rules, (and 14 years ago https://dailybruin.com/2010/02/04/ucla-f...p-stanford ) Jayne was in danger of sitting out a game (or was it two?) for hitting a UCLA player with her elbow. She was really just trying to hold on to the rebound. Nikki Caldwell said that, and Jasmine Dixon (the player hit) agreed. Anyway, Jayne was ejected (Tara's only player to get ejected?) and was possibly going to receive a one-game suspension. But after reviewing the incident, the Pac-10 decided it did not warrant a suspension.

[crackpot]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

Yes. So you understand correctly.

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

There's no automatic penalty that lasts beyond the current game.

The team or (I believe) the conference could decide to suspend a player for really bad behavior. That would be judged case by case.

Before they changed the rules, (and 14 years ago https://dailybruin.com/2010/02/04/ucla-f...p-stanford ) Jayne was in danger of sitting out a game (or was it two?) for hitting a UCLA player with her elbow. She was really just trying to hold on to the rebound. Nikki Caldwell said that, and Jasmine Dixon (the player hit) agreed. Anyway, Jayne was ejected (Tara's only player to get ejected?) and was possibly going to receive a one-game suspension. But after reviewing the incident, the Pac-10 decided it did not warrant a suspension.

[BobK]

The Bruin player only came up to Jayne’s
Elbows

[BobK]

The Bruin player only came up to Jayne’s
Elbows

[WBB fan]

I remember, or perhaps I'm re-creating it, the look of confusion and astonishment in Jayne's face. It was clear from her reaction to the ruling that she never meant to hurt anyone. I contrast that to what we saw on Sunday, which to me looked like a deliberate angry elbow slam

[WBB fan]

I remember, or perhaps I'm re-creating it, the look of confusion and astonishment in Jayne's face. It was clear from her reaction to the ruling that she never meant to hurt anyone. I contrast that to what we saw on Sunday, which to me looked like a deliberate angry elbow slam

[Goose]

I contrast that to what we saw on Sunday, which to me looked like a deliberate angry elbow slam

You bet it was deliberate. It may be that Murakatete thought she could get away with it. She was frustrated, they were losing, and she committed a deliberate act of violence that had nothing at all to do with the game. It was just a "cheap shot". The conference does (from what I have read here) sometimes suspend players. Murakatete is done after this year. She is 23 years old. IMO she should get the Draymond treatment.

[Goose]

I contrast that to what we saw on Sunday, which to me looked like a deliberate angry elbow slam

You bet it was deliberate. It may be that Murakatete thought she could get away with it. She was frustrated, they were losing, and she committed a deliberate act of violence that had nothing at all to do with the game. It was just a "cheap shot". The conference does (from what I have read here) sometimes suspend players. Murakatete is done after this year. She is 23 years old. IMO she should get the Draymond treatment.

[76lsjumb]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

[76lsjumb]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

[crackpot]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

If it had been the initial elbow, I would agree. It was the revving up and throwing the second elbow that made it intentional.

[crackpot]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

If it had been the initial elbow, I would agree. It was the revving up and throwing the second elbow that made it intentional.

[BobK]

Given where Cam was hit I believe that caused Jump to laugh.

[BobK]

Given where Cam was hit I believe that caused Jump to laugh.

[CompSci87]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

Yes. So you understand correctly.

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

There's no automatic penalty that lasts beyond the current game.

The team or (I believe) the conference could decide to suspend a player for really bad behavior. That would be judged case by case.

Before they changed the rules, (and 14 years ago https://dailybruin.com/2010/02/04/ucla-f...p-stanford ) Jayne was in danger of sitting out a game (or was it two?) for hitting a UCLA player with her elbow. She was really just trying to hold on to the rebound. Nikki Caldwell said that, and Jasmine Dixon (the player hit) agreed. Anyway, Jayne was ejected (Tara's only player to get ejected?) and was possibly going to receive a one-game suspension. But after reviewing the incident, the Pac-10 decided it did not warrant a suspension.

IIRC, at that time it was a brand new rule that hitting someone above the shoulders with an elbow was a automatic flagrant 2 (or whatever it was called then). I don't (and didn't) think a suspension was part of the rule, but I remember people were worried about it. Maybe there was a mandatory (?) review by the conference office, though.

[CompSci87]

Thanks for that!  That helps me to understand the escalating order of seriousness of the three tiers of fouls, whatever they are called.  But I don't understand the penalties and how they differ.  The third level disqualifies the player, and the first two appear not to.  The second and third levels allow you to keep the ball, but the first does not.  So the question is, if you already have four fouls, then being called for a second (intentional) has the exact same penalty as the third level of foul (disqualifying), correct?

Yes. So you understand correctly.

That would be unless it is like targeting and the disqualification lasts into the next game....does basketball have anything like that?  Or could a player swing an elbow into another player's head and knock her out--possibly causing a serious concussion protocol-- but be back to play the next game?  If Muraketete had done what she did to Lepolo instead of to Brink, that is what we might be looking at.

There's no automatic penalty that lasts beyond the current game.

The team or (I believe) the conference could decide to suspend a player for really bad behavior. That would be judged case by case.

Before they changed the rules, (and 14 years ago https://dailybruin.com/2010/02/04/ucla-f...p-stanford ) Jayne was in danger of sitting out a game (or was it two?) for hitting a UCLA player with her elbow. She was really just trying to hold on to the rebound. Nikki Caldwell said that, and Jasmine Dixon (the player hit) agreed. Anyway, Jayne was ejected (Tara's only player to get ejected?) and was possibly going to receive a one-game suspension. But after reviewing the incident, the Pac-10 decided it did not warrant a suspension.

IIRC, at that time it was a brand new rule that hitting someone above the shoulders with an elbow was a automatic flagrant 2 (or whatever it was called then). I don't (and didn't) think a suspension was part of the rule, but I remember people were worried about it. Maybe there was a mandatory (?) review by the conference office, though.

[CompSci87]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

[CompSci87]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

[OCcardinal]

2) Brink with 21 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 3/3 free throws, 2 blocks, and 5 steals.  An incredible stat line.

4) No one else contributed much offensively, but Ogden was 2/2 and continues to look as if she is coming into her own. 

2) Brink's box score-filing stats her helped earn her a USBWA National Player of the Week nod (though Beers edged her out for P12 player of the week in leading her team to the road sweep over Utah and Colorado).  After being limited by fouls (and injury) at the beginning of the Pac 12 season Brink has seen a minutes explosion the past 4 games (an average of almost 37 minutes) while keeping her fouls in check (only 2 fouls per game).  Very encouraging as we approach post-season tournament games where we may need every minute of Brink we can get.  Even more encouraging is that Brink hasn't faded at the end.  She had 6 points, 7 rebounds and 3 assists (and a 12 efficiency) in the 4th quarter vs Washington State.  She also had 7 points, 2 rebounds and assist and a block (and a 10 efficiency) in the 5 minute overtime vs Washington.  A 2.0 efficiency per minute rate in an overtime game for a big that's played more than 40 minutes is insane. This is an extremely encouraging turnaround for her. Tara seems to want to build that stamina as she has taken the reigns off lately.  Brink played most of the 4th quarter vs UCLA even though we entered the quarter with an 23 point lead.   

2) Ogden's had some good games as of late.  Her 5-7 vs Washington was big for the team (especially when Lepolo and Jump were 4-18). Tara's been putting her in in key moments and, for the most part, she's looked confident in those moments.  Coming along at the right time.

[OCcardinal]

2) Brink with 21 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 3/3 free throws, 2 blocks, and 5 steals.  An incredible stat line.

4) No one else contributed much offensively, but Ogden was 2/2 and continues to look as if she is coming into her own. 

2) Brink's box score-filing stats her helped earn her a USBWA National Player of the Week nod (though Beers edged her out for P12 player of the week in leading her team to the road sweep over Utah and Colorado).  After being limited by fouls (and injury) at the beginning of the Pac 12 season Brink has seen a minutes explosion the past 4 games (an average of almost 37 minutes) while keeping her fouls in check (only 2 fouls per game).  Very encouraging as we approach post-season tournament games where we may need every minute of Brink we can get.  Even more encouraging is that Brink hasn't faded at the end.  She had 6 points, 7 rebounds and 3 assists (and a 12 efficiency) in the 4th quarter vs Washington State.  She also had 7 points, 2 rebounds and assist and a block (and a 10 efficiency) in the 5 minute overtime vs Washington.  A 2.0 efficiency per minute rate in an overtime game for a big that's played more than 40 minutes is insane. This is an extremely encouraging turnaround for her. Tara seems to want to build that stamina as she has taken the reigns off lately.  Brink played most of the 4th quarter vs UCLA even though we entered the quarter with an 23 point lead.   

2) Ogden's had some good games as of late.  Her 5-7 vs Washington was big for the team (especially when Lepolo and Jump were 4-18). Tara's been putting her in in key moments and, for the most part, she's looked confident in those moments.  Coming along at the right time.

[jonnyss]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

in addition to being hard and to the breasts, the blow was not part of the flow of the game. neither player was near the ball. they were not jockeying for position. brink clearly had achieved position near the basket, and bella was fronting her; both were standing still while cam awaited an entry pass. murakatete was not trying to move cam out of position; bella whacked cam instead of trying to mover her out of position.  thus the contact was clearly "excessive." perhaps similar to the famous draymond green blow to lebron's crotch. draymond was lying down. lebron stepped over him disrespectfully. draymond struck/flailed upwards with his hand (not particularly hard; bella's blow was much harder and included a wind-up) but to a vulnerable area and not in the flow of the game.

link

[jonnyss]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

in addition to being hard and to the breasts, the blow was not part of the flow of the game. neither player was near the ball. they were not jockeying for position. brink clearly had achieved position near the basket, and bella was fronting her; both were standing still while cam awaited an entry pass. murakatete was not trying to move cam out of position; bella whacked cam instead of trying to mover her out of position.  thus the contact was clearly "excessive." perhaps similar to the famous draymond green blow to lebron's crotch. draymond was lying down. lebron stepped over him disrespectfully. draymond struck/flailed upwards with his hand (not particularly hard; bella's blow was much harder and included a wind-up) but to a vulnerable area and not in the flow of the game.

link

[2006alum]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

+1. I think they called it fairly. It was an intentional, and excessive, but hardly a mugging. And to her credit, I do think Cam sells her fouls well, and I do think that's at least *part* of why Jump was laughing...

Also, watching this replay reminds me of something Tara and others have said often about this season: don't the players seem like they're having fun? It feels night and day compared to last season. Here we are, only up by 7 late into the fourth, and everyone in the huddle is giggling and smiling. Really refreshing after last year's late-in-the-season angst-fest.

[2006alum]

I know that the general impression on the Board is that Murakatete committed an act that was just short of attempted murder, so maybe I'm the only one that feels differently.  However, a review of the tape sure seems to confirm what I thought at the time, which was that it was likely a foul, but also that Brink got the "intentional" call with a pretty good acting job.  My reason for concluding that is that, almost immediately upon Jump coming to her aid, Hannah broke out in laughter, which was promptly followed by Cam herself and then others on the bench.  That reaction  seemed much more consistent with having just done a very good job of getting a call to get an admittedly annoying opponent out of the game on a fifth foul than having just been subjected to a significant foul -- defined earlier in this thread as a "criminal assault".  In addition -- and I readily confess that slo-mo video can be misleading -- the slo-mo replay of the incident sure looks to me like there is a delay between the contact and Cam's rather dramatic response.  Finally, I'm reminded of the physics lesson in an earlier post about watching how the head moves in trying to figure out if it's a flop or not.  Cam's head doesn't seem to move the way I would have expected it to had the contact been as forceful as everyone seems to assume.

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

+1. I think they called it fairly. It was an intentional, and excessive, but hardly a mugging. And to her credit, I do think Cam sells her fouls well, and I do think that's at least *part* of why Jump was laughing...

Also, watching this replay reminds me of something Tara and others have said often about this season: don't the players seem like they're having fun? It feels night and day compared to last season. Here we are, only up by 7 late into the fourth, and everyone in the huddle is giggling and smiling. Really refreshing after last year's late-in-the-season angst-fest.

[Goose]

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

in addition to being hard and to the breasts, the blow was not part of the flow of the game. neither player was near the ball. they were not jockeying for position. brink clearly had achieved position near the basket, and bella was fronting her; both were standing still while cam awaited an entry pass. murakatete was not trying to move cam out of position; bella whacked cam instead of trying to mover her out of position.  thus the contact was clearly "excessive." perhaps similar to the famous draymond green blow to lebron's crotch. draymond was lying down. lebron stepped over him disrespectfully. draymond struck/flailed upwards with his hand (not particularly hard; bella's blow was much harder and included a wind-up) but to a vulnerable area and not in the flow of the game.

I agree it wasn't an assault, as an assault (according to Webster)

The crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact.

Brink was not in "fear" of such contact because she never saw it coming. It was a "cheap shot". It was certainly a battery, but from the definition of battery all fouls are. The point here is that as the OP stated the blow was not in any way related to the flow of the game. It was simply an act of unprovoked, gratuitous violence. Also as stated by the OP, there was a "wind up" and it was a blow to a vulnerable area.  It was intended to hurt at the very least. I don't agree that it was much like Draymond and Lebron. Draymond took offense to Lebron stepping over him. Draymond's reaction was all out of proportion, but at least there was arguably a "reason" Draymond was angered. In the case of Murekatete there was no proximate "reason" to do what she did. IMO that is why a much more significant punishment is warranted. Student-athletes aren't supposed to do things like that. Losing your temper is bad enough, but attempting to hurt someone for no apparent reason IMO has to be significantly sanctioned.

FWIW, laughter is often the response when people see something that is so strange and unexpected they have no conditioned response. The "did that actually happen?" feeling is often followed by laughter, even when the event itself may be quite serious it its effects.

[Goose]

I agree it was far from an assault. I think it may have legitimately been hard enough to be an intentional under the rules. Especially since the rules leave whether the contact is "excessive" to the ref's judgement.

in addition to being hard and to the breasts, the blow was not part of the flow of the game. neither player was near the ball. they were not jockeying for position. brink clearly had achieved position near the basket, and bella was fronting her; both were standing still while cam awaited an entry pass. murakatete was not trying to move cam out of position; bella whacked cam instead of trying to mover her out of position.  thus the contact was clearly "excessive." perhaps similar to the famous draymond green blow to lebron's crotch. draymond was lying down. lebron stepped over him disrespectfully. draymond struck/flailed upwards with his hand (not particularly hard; bella's blow was much harder and included a wind-up) but to a vulnerable area and not in the flow of the game.

I agree it wasn't an assault, as an assault (according to Webster)

The crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact.

Brink was not in "fear" of such contact because she never saw it coming. It was a "cheap shot". It was certainly a battery, but from the definition of battery all fouls are. The point here is that as the OP stated the blow was not in any way related to the flow of the game. It was simply an act of unprovoked, gratuitous violence. Also as stated by the OP, there was a "wind up" and it was a blow to a vulnerable area.  It was intended to hurt at the very least. I don't agree that it was much like Draymond and Lebron. Draymond took offense to Lebron stepping over him. Draymond's reaction was all out of proportion, but at least there was arguably a "reason" Draymond was angered. In the case of Murekatete there was no proximate "reason" to do what she did. IMO that is why a much more significant punishment is warranted. Student-athletes aren't supposed to do things like that. Losing your temper is bad enough, but attempting to hurt someone for no apparent reason IMO has to be significantly sanctioned.

FWIW, laughter is often the response when people see something that is so strange and unexpected they have no conditioned response. The "did that actually happen?" feeling is often followed by laughter, even when the event itself may be quite serious it its effects.

[pefloresjr]

Agree that it was not a serious "assault" in the general sense that most people use it.  In the legal sense it was a battery but is nothing that would ever involve actual arrest or prosecution because it didn't cause a visible injury and was in the context of a sporting event.  Thus, not an "assault" in the common sense.  Not all fouls are battery either because they are not all considered harmful or offensive contact but that is really way off the point and not worth pursuing.  

However, it was definitely a cheap shot and worthy of a level one flagrant foul.  The refs got it right in my opinion.  

Sometimes, I wish we had a bit of an enforcer to protect our players by turning the tables like in hockey but I realize that is just the emotion of being upset when teams are "beating up" our players as a defensive strategy.  I don't want our players coached to try to get away with as much as possible or constantly flopping to draw cheap fouls.  Not the type of team I want to root for.  

Even when it happened, I thought that the laughter of Hannah and Cam were the result of shock over the fact that the foul was such an unexpected cheap shot.  The fact that Cam wasn't seriously hurt (she probably had a bruise later) seemed to keep them from reacting with anger.  Glad it wasn't any worse.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Agree that it was not a serious "assault" in the general sense that most people use it.  In the legal sense it was a battery but is nothing that would ever involve actual arrest or prosecution because it didn't cause a visible injury and was in the context of a sporting event.  Thus, not an "assault" in the common sense.  Not all fouls are battery either because they are not all considered harmful or offensive contact but that is really way off the point and not worth pursuing.  

However, it was definitely a cheap shot and worthy of a level one flagrant foul.  The refs got it right in my opinion.  

Sometimes, I wish we had a bit of an enforcer to protect our players by turning the tables like in hockey but I realize that is just the emotion of being upset when teams are "beating up" our players as a defensive strategy.  I don't want our players coached to try to get away with as much as possible or constantly flopping to draw cheap fouls.  Not the type of team I want to root for.  

Even when it happened, I thought that the laughter of Hannah and Cam were the result of shock over the fact that the foul was such an unexpected cheap shot.  The fact that Cam wasn't seriously hurt (she probably had a bruise later) seemed to keep them from reacting with anger.  Glad it wasn't any worse.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[M T]

Sorry, Mary Murphy.  This foul should not be shown on the referees' highlight film as an intentional foul.  It should be shown as a disqualifying foul, and to highlight the need for officials to know the rules.

The foul was by rule a disqualifying foul (no judgement required)   I would challenge the officials (Nicole Leon, Richard Waters, Bob Scofield)  as to why they called it only an intentional foul (if in fact they did).

What I believe led up to it: Murekatete was frustrated that Brink's arms were in her neck area, as Murekatete tried to get in front of Brink, while Brink crossed the lane.  (After the intentional foul, Murekatete seemed to indicate that Brink was swinging her elbow.  The video shows Brink did not swing her elbows.)
While we cannot know what Murekatete was thinking, her actions are consistent with her thinking she was being fouled, getting angry, and taking it out on the opponent, and then complaining that she was being fouled.

Regarding Brink's head motion, I see two motions.  The first motion is exactly what physics would predict for a hard blow to her sternum. Her chest region is pushed back, causing her shirt to flap as it loses contact with her body., As her chest goes back, so does her spine and neck.. You see the top of her head apparently going in the opposite direction (toward the blow) since the backward motion of her neck plus inertia would cause her head to rotate around its center of gravity, causing the top of the head going toward the blow.

I agree that as the pain hits her, she reacts to it about 0.2 seconds after impact.  Her body and neck stiffens for an instant, initially straightening up with her head going back, and then her body rolls away from her attacker, and she collapses to the ground, one hand coming to where she was hit while the other helps to keep her from falling on her face.  Oh yea, there is the scream of pain (heard in the live view at the beginning).   (I find it fascinating to wonder about how many millions of years it took a species to develop reflexes to an attack like this.)

This is very different from the attempts to draw a charge where the blocking player throws her head back at being touched, leading to the body going backward.

I'll also note Brink does a quick rub of where she was hit at 1:16 in that clip.

What should have been the ruling:
Regarding the term "excessive", the action in this case is DEFINED as excessive, and as extreme. 
Murekatete's foul needs only to satisfy one of the two clauses in 10-6.7, but it satisfies both.

Then, by 10-10.16b, it was a disqualifying foul.

(my emphasis)

Rule 10. Section 6. Art. 7. The following shall be considered not only excessive, but extreme,
swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung
is such that injury could result if another player was contacted.
...
Rule 10. Section 10. Art. 16. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
b. Is excessive per Rule 10-6.7 is a disqualifying foul.

The official review should have considered whether this was a (one-person) fight.  I would agree the foul was non-combative, and so was not part of a (one-person) fight.

Rule 10. Section 15. Art. 2. A fight is a confrontation involving one or more players, coaches or
other team personnel wherein (but not limited to) a fist, hand, arm, foot, knee,
or leg is used to combatively strike the other individual.

------

I believe some people here feel that this was a combative strike.  I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't agree with it.
That would raise the event to a (one-person) fight.  A fight has multi-game consequences, as some wondered about.

YES, a player disqualified for a (first) fight would be suspended for the next game as well.
A player disqualified for a second fight is suspended for the remainder of the year (including post-season play, or potentially into the next year).

Note that a player does not have to strike a player to be suspended for fighting.  Provoking another player (resulting in a fight) or attempting to hit another player constitute fighting.

The conference CAN change certain things about a fight: It can change the players who are charged with fighting.  It can make the penalties more (but not less) severe for the fight.

[M T]

Sorry, Mary Murphy.  This foul should not be shown on the referees' highlight film as an intentional foul.  It should be shown as a disqualifying foul, and to highlight the need for officials to know the rules.

The foul was by rule a disqualifying foul (no judgement required)   I would challenge the officials (Nicole Leon, Richard Waters, Bob Scofield)  as to why they called it only an intentional foul (if in fact they did).

What I believe led up to it: Murekatete was frustrated that Brink's arms were in her neck area, as Murekatete tried to get in front of Brink, while Brink crossed the lane.  (After the intentional foul, Murekatete seemed to indicate that Brink was swinging her elbow.  The video shows Brink did not swing her elbows.)
While we cannot know what Murekatete was thinking, her actions are consistent with her thinking she was being fouled, getting angry, and taking it out on the opponent, and then complaining that she was being fouled.

Regarding Brink's head motion, I see two motions.  The first motion is exactly what physics would predict for a hard blow to her sternum. Her chest region is pushed back, causing her shirt to flap as it loses contact with her body., As her chest goes back, so does her spine and neck.. You see the top of her head apparently going in the opposite direction (toward the blow) since the backward motion of her neck plus inertia would cause her head to rotate around its center of gravity, causing the top of the head going toward the blow.

I agree that as the pain hits her, she reacts to it about 0.2 seconds after impact.  Her body and neck stiffens for an instant, initially straightening up with her head going back, and then her body rolls away from her attacker, and she collapses to the ground, one hand coming to where she was hit while the other helps to keep her from falling on her face.  Oh yea, there is the scream of pain (heard in the live view at the beginning).   (I find it fascinating to wonder about how many millions of years it took a species to develop reflexes to an attack like this.)

This is very different from the attempts to draw a charge where the blocking player throws her head back at being touched, leading to the body going backward.

I'll also note Brink does a quick rub of where she was hit at 1:16 in that clip.

What should have been the ruling:
Regarding the term "excessive", the action in this case is DEFINED as excessive, and as extreme. 
Murekatete's foul needs only to satisfy one of the two clauses in 10-6.7, but it satisfies both.

Then, by 10-10.16b, it was a disqualifying foul.

(my emphasis)

Rule 10. Section 6. Art. 7. The following shall be considered not only excessive, but extreme,
swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung
is such that injury could result if another player was contacted.
...
Rule 10. Section 10. Art. 16. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
b. Is excessive per Rule 10-6.7 is a disqualifying foul.

The official review should have considered whether this was a (one-person) fight.  I would agree the foul was non-combative, and so was not part of a (one-person) fight.

Rule 10. Section 15. Art. 2. A fight is a confrontation involving one or more players, coaches or
other team personnel wherein (but not limited to) a fist, hand, arm, foot, knee,
or leg is used to combatively strike the other individual.

------

I believe some people here feel that this was a combative strike.  I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't agree with it.
That would raise the event to a (one-person) fight.  A fight has multi-game consequences, as some wondered about.

YES, a player disqualified for a (first) fight would be suspended for the next game as well.
A player disqualified for a second fight is suspended for the remainder of the year (including post-season play, or potentially into the next year).

Note that a player does not have to strike a player to be suspended for fighting.  Provoking another player (resulting in a fight) or attempting to hit another player constitute fighting.

The conference CAN change certain things about a fight: It can change the players who are charged with fighting.  It can make the penalties more (but not less) severe for the fight.