EAST LANSING -- When Michigan State head basketball coach Tom Izzo sat down to watch the Detroit Lions play on Thanksgiving Day, he couldn't help but feel sorry for Jim Schwartz.

But that doesn't mean he would like to have a red challenge flag of his own, basketball's just not that type of sport. Izzo is concerned however with the new rule and officiating emphasis regarding elbow contact, flagrant fouls and the enforcement of them.

"Some of these rules, we're changing now where we're going from letting a referee referee, to these absolutes," Izzo said Monday night on his weekly radio show. "If a guy gets nicked in the head, it's a this foul. If he puts his hands here, it's that foul. It's not that kind of sport; it's got to be more free flowing."

Michigan State has already been victimized by the new flagrant foul system this season. Derrick Nix was called for a flagrant foul, due to swinging elbow contact, in the Spartans win over Boise State on November 20.

"I think what's mystifying about it is, the way it was explained to me, there's a flagrant 1 and a flagrant 2," Izzo said. "A flagrant 2 is if you lead with your elbow. A flagrant 1 is if it's an accidental elbow. So I asked an official last night (one officiating the game versus Louisiana-Lafayette), if any of you watched our game against UCONN and saw how (Travis) Trice got hit? He was guarding a guy, and the guy came and he went up to shoot it, and he came down an elbowed (Trice) right in the head.

"I said the way the rule is written, I should have protested that and it'd be a flagrant 1, cause he gets nicked in the head. That would have been two shots plus the ball. When you lose a game by two points, it's a big difference, you know?

"So, again, I think it's a ridiculous rule. I mean, the flagrant 2, if you lead with your elbow and it's intentional, I got no problem with it. But if we're looking at accidental things now, Nix had the ball above his head (in the game against Boise State), what is he supposed to do?"

The official NCAA rules committees for men's and women's basketball identified contact with the elbow, whether intentional or accidental, as "a major concern that needs to be addressed because of their increased incidence of occurrence", according the 2012-2012 NCAA men's basketball rule changes.

The rule change has eliminated what was previously known as an "intentional foul" with what is now known as a "flagrant 1". What was previously known as a "flagrant 1" is now being called a "flagrant 2". The NCAA rule book points out to their officials the difference between a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2, when it comes to elbow contact, the following way:



Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2 Fouls for Elbow Contact Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above or below the shoulders; swinging of the elbow is required for the foul to be classified as a flagrant 1 or 2 foul. Some incidental contact is being penalized improperly.

Elbow contact is then defined in Section 36, Articles 6 and 7 as such:

Art. 6. It shall be illegal to extend one's elbow(s) and make contact when one's: a. Hands are on one's hips; b. Hands are held near one's chest; or c. Arms are held approximately horizontal to the playing court when not holding the ball. Note: These illegal positions are most commonly used when rebounding, screening or in the various aspects of post play. Art. 7. The following shall be considered excessive 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 were contacted.

Making things even more mystifying, is the fact that coaches have the ability, when they believe there has been a violation of this rule, to ask an official to review the play using a monitor. If the coach believes that what was called a flagrant 1 should have been called a flagrant 2, he or she may ask the official to take a second look. If the officials maintain their original ruling of a flagrant 1, the team who asked for the review will be charged a timeout.

Ruling: 2-13.2.d.1 While the officials are permitted to review the monitor to see if a flagrant 2 personal foul or (women) a flagrant 1 personal foul for il- legal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent occurred, Rule 2-13.2.d.1 states that when it is determined that a flagrant 2 personal foul did not occur but a flagrant 1 personal or a contact dead ball technical foul did occur, those fouls can be penalized, but no other infractions may be penalized. When the official reports a flagrant 1 personal foul, that foul can be reviewed until the ball becomes live, but when it is discovered that neither a flagrant 1 nor flagrant 2 foul occurred, the reported foul cannot be downgraded to a common foul. Since the coach requested a review for a possible flagrant 2 personal foul and no such foul occurred, Team B is charged a timeout.

Getting the call right is important, but the time taken by officials to review such calls has begun to have adverse effects of its own.

"After watching poor Jim Schwartz, I don't know if I'd want to throw the red flag personally," Izzo said. "But if I did, I can think of a few guys I'd like to throw it at, so that would be good. I don't think it will come to that in basketball. I think it's a good rule in football. I think the one that they had in Detroit was a ridiculous rule myself.

"I don't see (challenges by coaches in college basketball) happening. It is getting kind of long now (the officials going to the monitor to check replays). I heard one time there was a four minute and thirty second delay in one of the games last week. That's a long time not to figure out what's going on."

Tom Izzo isn't the only one concerned about such delays. The NCAA itself, by way of the rules committee, has warned officials about over use of the monitor review.

Use of Monitor While technology is a tool which has enabled officials to "get the call right," there is growing concern that the monitor is being used too often, especially on calls where officials are correct a high percentage of the time. Just because the rules say officials are permitted to go doesn't mean they must go to the monitor."

It appears that the rule may take some time, for coaches and officials to figure out. Meanwhile, some teams already feel as if their season has been affected.

"It really is not a good rule; It really isn't," Izzo said. "Purdue lost a game to Villanova two weeks ago just because of that rule. You see it happen in the NCAA tournament, and I don't think people will be quite as jovial about it."

-- Download MLive.com's smartphone app to get all the latest Michigan State basketball news on your mobile device. Follow Gillian Van Stratt on twitter and email her at gvanstratt@mlive.com.