Steal and excessive contact - Is this a common, Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2 Foul? 

F1 for the hook on the arm at the end. Wasn’t going for the ball at that point. No need for an F2 at all, no malicious intent.

I would at least given this a flagrant 1 for the pull down at the end, i don’t see enough there that would constitute excessive or violent to warrant a flagrant 2. NFHS, i would call this an intentional foul but since that no longer exists in college it’s just a flagrant 1.

"And none of those 3 officials have been on a fast break to try to keep somebody from scoring." One of the dumbest comments I have heard any analyst make. I think I'm going F1 college, intentional in High School.

hook and pull down. NFHS Flagrant Foul. disqualified.

I would have at least an F1 to start, but would upgrade if my partners agree.

That announcer has to go.

From a NHFS perspective I would have called an intentional foul . To eject I'm not sure.

Need some more videos man! I'm itching for content! Haha

F1

In NFHS, I'd go intentional.

I think I would have gone with an F1 (NFHS Intentional) but you can see right at the end of the video review, the pull-down forcing him to the ground hard. Not sure if this rises to the level of F2 but, of course, they have different video angles than what we may have been shown here so they may have seen more on the pull-down or follow through than we were able to see. I would have loved being the 4th official in the huddle or hearing the explanation to the SJ coach.

I'm glad the officials stopped play for the review. However, like the TV analyst, I disagree with the final call. Flagrant 1 would have been the better option. "None of those three officials have been on the fastbreak trying to stop someone from scoring," said the commentator. That's what happened here. In his attempt to hack the Indiana player's arm to prevent the layup, the St. John's player got hooked around the Indiana player. The St. John's player is responsible for that, so Flagrant 1 over common hacking foul is a good call. The Flagrant 2 wording IMPLIES a possible malicious intent. I give the best of intentions to the officials in trying to keep things safe. But a call like this only weakens the game overall. Some coaches may worry that any kind of hard foul could be interpreted by the officials as "excessive and dangerous" and lead to an ejection so they instruct their players to go soft on defending against the fastbreak, and, conversely, the overaggressive types will think "I'm gonna roll the dice and clean this guy's clock, since a hard a foul could get me kicked out anyway."

Wish we could hear them explain why they chose flagrant 2 instead of flagrant 1. Potential for for injury was definitely there. Initial call appeared to be just a common foul?

Conversely it looks worst in real time. Slow mo...I would go common foul. Totally agree with the potential for injury...but don't think there was intent. Secondly, the offensive guy's windmill created the entanglement.