Leach Flagrant II: The number of ways we get jobbed is mind-blowing

[wildcatcoaster]

Cheap calls, bad calls, calls I don't understand (Penn State). Game changers. Momentum killers. It just happens again and again and again.

There is no way Goldin gets ejected if that happens the other way around.

Unreal.

 

[CatManTrue]

Cheap calls, bad calls, calls I don't understand (Penn State). Game changers. Momentum killers. It just happens again and again and again.

There is no way Goldin gets ejected if that happens the other way around.

Unreal.

The Flagrant 2 call was unbelievable. Leach got absolutely jobbed. Thankfully CCC didn’t get T’d up thereafter to add insult to injury

 

[GatoLouco]

It feels like the same logic I could be sued for battery if I bumped into someone on the street and the bump hit his groin.

Especially bizarre when the other guy is so much taller, increasing the chances of nut area being hit.

 

[Davidgolds5]

It feels like the same logic I could be sued for battery if I bumped into someone on the street and the bump hit his groin.

Especially bizarre when the other guy is so much taller, increasing the chances of nut area being hit.

Dayton- no barnhizer
Butler- no call on three and one
Iowa- ridiculous buzzer beater
Penn State- ref goaltend debacle
Michigan- leach 🥜 ejection
What else is gonna happen on road games this year?

 

[CappyNU]

It feels like the same logic I could be sued for battery if I bumped into someone on the street and the bump hit his groin.

Especially bizarre when the other guy is so much taller, increasing the chances of nut area being hit.

And when that guy initiated the contact that threw Leach off balance due to being 7 feet tall and 250 pounds.

 

[hdhntr1]

It feels like the same logic I could be sued for battery if I bumped into someone on the street and the bump hit his groin.

Especially bizarre when the other guy is so much taller, increasing the chances of nut area being hit.

It was basically a basketball play. Inadvertent at best. Even if you want to call something on that Flagrant 1 just because something happened is all that is there. Using it to eject the guy was just wrong,

 

[catcrazy]

I hope Collins sends a message to the commissioner that refereeing has directly caused us to lose games. Not the players the refs. What a shame

 

[Hungry Jack]

We are like the Bears in that we reveal unique and exciting new ways to lose games. The pivotal difference is the officials facilitate our losses, while the Bears do it to themselves.

 

[hdhntr1]

I hope Collins sends a message to the commissioner that refereeing has directly caused us to lose games. Not the players the refs. What a shame

He has a mimeogragh machine and he just has to keep running off copies of his complaints and filling in the reason because they are all unique

 

[Davidgolds5]

Btw on the late inbounds in the corner, the Michigan player got stuck in the corner and took six steps. No travel called. I cannot stand the big ten officiating.

 

[CatManTrue]

Btw on the late inbounds in the corner, the Michigan player got stuck in the corner and took six steps. No travel called. I cannot stand the big ten officiating.

Even the terrible announcers caught the travels and laughed it off. Pathetic!

 

[KelloggFireman]

The Leach flagrant should’ve been called an illegal screen on Goldin! And yes, big-time traveling on Michigan’s last inbounds play. Didn’t help that we shot FTs so poorly down the stretch, or that Berry and Martinelli stopped scoring as soon as Leach was tossed.

 

[macarthur31]

Btw on the late inbounds in the corner, the Michigan player got stuck in the corner and took six steps. No travel called. I cannot stand the big ten officiating.

 

[Davidgolds5]

View embedded media

Absolute joke.

 

[eddie_gocats]

FTRefs!

 

[SmellyCat]

They called the timeout pretty early in that possession. It's POSSIBLE that as soon as it went in the corner (before the multiple steps), the whistle blew.

A lot of other things were questionable that I'm more annoyed by than this one.

 

[Catdude]

According to Andy Katz, the Big 10 rule book says contact with the groin warrants an ejection only if intentional. But the Big 10 head ref defended the call by saying the contact itself is an automatic ejection and intent is meaningless. So if that’s all true, then the refs objectively made the wrong call in interpreting and enforcing the rule book. And that objectively wrong call had an objectively major consequence in removing our starting PG (who was playing really well) from the game with 10 minutes left.

 

[eastbaycat99]

One thing that gets me is that Goldin tried to play the refs at the end of the first half when Fitzmorris hit him across the shoulders. Goldin immediately put his hands to his face, trying to make it look like a flagrant foul, pretending to have been hit there, though the replay clearly showed the contact was lower.

On the contact to the groin, he seemed to me to go into a full Pacino relative to the degree of impact. He sold it completely. You would think, after the bad acting earlier, that the refs would have questioned the effect of the contact. I was watching without sound: when the ejection foul stopped play, I was sure it was for the moving screen. When the banner flashed replay, I thought it was Goldin under scrutiny. Oh, well.

 

[hdhntr1]

Dayton- no barnhizer
Butler- no call on three and one
Iowa- ridiculous buzzer beater
Penn State- ref goaltend debacle
Michigan- leach 🥜 ejection
What else is gonna happen on road games this year?

Isn't this the second time we have had this called against us? At Rutgers last year wasn't it called against Lonborg? It cost us that road game as well. It would be interesting to find out how many times that has been called in BIG in the last couple years.

 

[HawkCat]

According to Andy Katz, the Big 10 rule book says contact with the groin warrants an ejection only if intentional. But the Big 10 head ref defended the call by saying the contact itself is an automatic ejection and intent is meaningless. So if that’s all true, then the refs objectively made the wrong call in interpreting and enforcing the rule book. And that objectively wrong call had an objectively major consequence in removing our starting PG (who was playing really well) from the game with 10 minutes left.

That is my beef. The explanation plainly was contradicted by the language of the rule. The official obviously did not understand the rule. That is a problem.

 

[hoosboot]

Isn't this the second time we have had this called against us? At Rutgers last year wasn't it called against Lonborg? It cost us that road game as well. It would be interesting to find out how many times that has been called in BIG in the last couple years.

Cats were 0-8 from the field with 2 turnovers in the last 3 minutes of regulation and in overtime.

The call against Leach was tough as it seems pretty obvious it wasn't intentional, but the opportunity to win the game was there. Good teams find ways to overcome adversity and win those games and this team doesn't seem to have the ability to consistently transcend the adversity it faces. Hopefully it develops. They are getting lots of opportunities to work on it.

 

[hdhntr1]

According to Andy Katz, the Big 10 rule book says contact with the groin warrants an ejection only if intentional. But the Big 10 head ref defended the call by saying the contact itself is an automatic ejection and intent is meaningless. So if that’s all true, then the refs objectively made the wrong call in interpreting and enforcing the rule book. And that objectively wrong call had an objectively major consequence in removing our starting PG (who was playing really well) from the game with 10 minutes left.

I thought I heard something where they were sort of dumbing it down for the flagrant one and that was so the refs did not have to go and try to determine intent. But it would seem if you were going to eject someone at a critical point you would need to show it. And why would an inadvertent blow to the groin deemed more serious than a blow to the head which can cause a concussion?

 

[hdhntr1]

Cats were 0-8 from the field with 2 turnovers in the last 3 minutes of regulation and in overtime.

The call against Leach was tough as it seems pretty obvious it wasn't intentional, but the opportunity to win the game was there. Good teams find ways to overcome adversity and win those games and this team doesn't seem to have the ability to consistently transcend the adversity it faces. Hopefully it develops. They are getting lots of opportunities to work on it.

When you take out the leading scoring threat and the guy that had had all the assists, O breaks down. Leach was doing a solid job of playing point and had the points and assists. The fact that without him they actually got to OT and stayed in it despite losing the top scorer and top assist guy and not hitting shots was pretty remarkable

 

[Catdude]

Any missed call is frustrating but the subjective in-the-moment ones are understandable because no ref is going to get every call right. But to misapply the rule book and get an objective decision wrong is especially maddening. And it had such a huge impact with the ejection. A typical missed call only results in two or three points.
Hopefully some of these calls will go our way the rest of the season.

 

[HawkCat]

I thought I heard something where they were sort of dumbing it down for the flagrant one and that was so the refs did not have to go and try to determine intent. But it would seem if you were going to eject someone at a critical point you would need to show it. And why would an inadvertent blow to the groin deemed more serious than a blow to the head which can cause a concussion?

The B1G official contended that a flagrant 2 is "automatic" when a player is hit in the groin, and that the refs can't officiate intent. That is not what the rule says. The rule says "[a]ny contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental" is a flagrant 2. Indeed, that is one of the purposes of the review. To my eye, it was clear that Leach was trying to get through a screen, was knocked off balance onto one foot, and swung his other leg in an effort to remain upright and on his feet. To me, it appeared to be clearly accidental. But even if the ref disagreed that it was clear, it was wrong to say the flagrant 2 was "automatic."

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

One thing that gets me is that Goldin tried to play the refs at the end of the first half when Fitzmorris hit him across the shoulders. Goldin immediately put his hands to his face, trying to make it look like a flagrant foul, pretending to have been hit there, though the replay clearly showed the contact was lower.

On the contact to the groin, he seemed to me to go into a full Pacino relative to the degree of impact. He sold it completely. You would think, after the bad acting earlier, that the refs would have questioned the effect of the contact. I was watching without sound: when the ejection foul stopped play, I was sure it was for the moving screen. When the banner flashed replay, I thought it was Goldin under scrutiny. Oh, well.

Well thats the thing...

Anybody who ever learned the basics of physics knows that Goldin and Leach were moving toward each other and because Goldin had more mass and collided with Leach at about Leach's shoulder level, Leach's body will pivot around his center of gravity (midsection) so his shoulders will move backward and either unplanted leg will move forward to offset the impact.

It could have been an illegal screen, but I'd have said play on. Either way Leach's movements were involuntary.

 

[CatManTrue]

Well thats the thing...

Anybody who ever learned the basics of physics knows that Goldin and Leach were moving toward each other and because Goldin had more mass and collided with Leach at about Leach's shoulder level, Leach's body will pivot around his center of gravity (midsection) so his shoulders will move backward and either unplanted leg will move forward to offset the impact.

It could have been an illegal screen, but I'd have said play on. Either way Leach's movements were involuntary.

Agreed on all points.

especially the EXPECTATION that everyone- Big Ten Officials especially- should be better educated on the fundamental laws of physics. ⚡️

 

[TheC]

Agreed on all points.

especially the EXPECTATION that everyone- Big Ten Officials especially- should be better educated on the fundamental laws of physics. ⚡️

Don't be silly.... Americans don't believe in science.

 

[hdhntr1]

The B1G official contended that a flagrant 2 is "automatic" when a player is hit in the groin, and that the refs can't officiate intent. That is not what the rule says. The rule says "[a]ny contact by the offending player to the groin areaa of an opponent which is not clearly accidental" is a flagrant 2. Indeed, that is one of the purposes of the review. To my eye, it was clear that Leach was trying to get through a screen, was knocked off balance onto one foot, and swung his other leg in an effort to remain upright and on his feet. To me, it appeared to be clearly accidental. But even if the ref disagreed that it was clear, it was wrong to say the flagrant 2 was "automatic."

It is not what the rulebook says. But the head BIG ref said it was automatic. Which is it? Is that what they meant by dumbing it down so that the refs don't have to determine intent?

 

[MC_Cat]

The rub is the part about being "clearly accidental." I guess the refs felt they couldn't be certain that it was, so sent JL to the locker room.

 

[Catdude]

I don’t think we know that the refs thought it was intentional. The head ref (incorrectly) said that intent didn’t matter in justifying the call so we don’t know if the gave refs applied that same (incorrect) logic. Not that it matters at this point but hopefully Collins and NU got a detailed explanation since the game.

 

[hdhntr1]

I don’t think we know that the refs thought it was intentional. The head ref (incorrectly) said that intent didn’t matter in justifying the call so we don’t know if the gave refs applied that same (incorrect) logic. Not that it matters at this point but hopefully Collins and NU got a detailed explanation since the game.

Sort of reminds me of the targeting call in FB, When the first started enforcing it, it was pretty much automatic that it led to ejection but more recently they have been much more careful about ejections and while it still happens seems like it is about 10-20% of what it was when they originally started enforcing it,

 

[Davidgolds5]

given how innately dumb it is, I can’t imagine the rule is going to continue to be written or enforced the way it is.

 

[hdhntr1]

given how innately dumb it is, I can’t imagine the rule is going to continue to be written or enforced the way it is.

I would like to know how many times it has been called in BIG in the last two years, It has been called twice against us.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I’m in Vegas on a boys trip. One of my buds flipped his shoe off the end of his foot straight into my berries. Direct hit. After regaining my stature, I immediately called a Flagrant 2 and threw him out of the hotel.

 

[GatoLouco]

I’m in Vegas on a boys trip. One of my buds flipped his shoe off the end of his foot straight into my berries. Direct hit. After regaining my stature, I immediately called a Flagrant 2 and threw him out of the hotel.

Rule says contact to berries is an automatic ejection.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Rule says contact to berries is an automatic ejection.

At some point somebody is going to make an ass of himself, hopping around the court "nuts-forward" trying to draw contact.

 

[EagerFan]

Rule says contact to berries is an automatic ejection.

That is untrue, but apparently the refs just don't know the rules - who is surprised about that? The call still requires an assessment and a decision by the refs as to intent. "Automatic" is simply false.

(Apparently one of the rules changes for 2024-2025 is that faking being fouled is now a Class B Technical. Man, we should be shooting so many free throws just from that.)


From the 2024-2025 rulebook:

2. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing),while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:

a) The severity of the contact;

b) Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors, such as hard contact to the head or the defender winding up or emphatically following through with the contact. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;

c) The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while the player was in a vulnerable position). Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, the foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;

d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental; and

e) Any foul similar to the foul described in Rule 4-15.2.c.1.g in which the contact, or the result of the contact, is not only excessive but also severe or extreme.

Note: The above acts represent examples of potential flagrant 2 fouls. Other acts may also qualify, if they meet the criteria of being not only excessive but also severe or extreme.

 

[GatoLouco]

That is untrue, but apparently the refs just don't know the rules - who is surprised about that? The call still requires an assessment and a decision by the refs as to intent. "Automatic" is simply false.

(Apparently one of the rules changes for 2024-2025 is that faking being fouled is now a Class B Technical. Man, we should be shooting so many free throws just from that.)


From the 2024-2025 rulebook:

2. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing),while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:

a) The severity of the contact;

b) Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors, such as hard contact to the head or the defender winding up or emphatically following through with the contact. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;

c) The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while the player was in a vulnerable position). Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, the foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;

d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental; and

e) Any foul similar to the foul described in Rule 4-15.2.c.1.g in which the contact, or the result of the contact, is not only excessive but also severe or extreme.

Note: The above acts represent examples of potential flagrant 2 fouls. Other acts may also qualify, if they meet the criteria of being not only excessive but also severe or extreme.

I don't see this rule mentioning any berries. Contact to berries is automatic ejection. Especially if you are in Vegas. It's just common sense.

 

[EagerFan]

I don't see this rule mentioning any berries. Contact to berries is automatic ejection. Especially if you are in Vegas. It's just common sense.

d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental;

Not an automatic ejection per the rulebook. It's just the actual rules, not the refs who incorrectly apply them.

Maybe they'll change the rules for 2025-2026 to match what the refs are going to do regardless the actual rules?