I'll be less subtle: I was not discussing any rules or interpretations, I was piling on what HJ posted trying to be humorous.
Leach Flagrant II: The number of ways we get jobbed is mind-blowing
- Thread starter wildcatcoaster
- Start date
Yeah sorry, I shouldn't be so humorless. I'm just really triggered by all the bad and badly timed reffing working against us.
Have you ever watched European soccer. They get knocked down and lie on the ground writhing in the most pitiful display of fake pain ever imagined. That was CCC's point, it was a thespian performance that cost us a game. And the dumber than shit B1G Director of Officials says you can't judge intent? The dude faked it and the whistles bought it. Pretty bush league. 7'1" 270 pounds grieviously assaulted by a 6'1" 165 NU PG. BS!
It is in item d)
d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental;
Meaning that it has to be something that is clearly not accidental to rise to the level of Flagrant 2
All they need to do is swap out the "not clearly accidental" for "not clearly intentional" and make that a flagrant 1 and we have a practical solution. If it's deemed clearly intentional, then it's a flagrant 2 and away you go.
Rebel, I couldn’t agree more. As I previosly noted, Goldin threw his hands to his face and pretended to have been hit there by Fitzsimmons toward the end of the first half. The refs reviewed that call (the video clearly showed the contact was below the head area and Goldin’s gesture). It is inexplicable that the refs did not assess Goldin a technical unless they just don’t know the rules. Here is how the NCAA described the “flopping” technical when it was added a few years ago:
“Committee members defined flopping as an unsporting act that occurs when a player attempts to influence an official's judgment by creating an appearance that a foul has been committed when there has been incidental or no contact.
When evaluating potential flopping situations, officials will be asked to judge whether the player's physical reaction to the contact with another player is consistent with what would have been expected, given the force of the contact. When the reaction is not consistent, the player is most likely exaggerating the nature of the contact in an attempt to gain an advantage, and flopping has occurred.”
A technical could probably have been called on Goldin on the Leach contact.
The only way the refs could judge if Vlad was faking would be to knee him in the balls and see how he reacted - then compare the two videos.
Robbie Hummel was doing the Purdue game last night and he was critical of the number of replay reviews in that game...
To paraphrase...
"You can't be reviewing every play. It takes too long and detracts from the game. Anybody who watched the last minute of the Michigan/Northwestern game knows this. I would much prefer a system of coach's challenges like the NBA uses. The NBA has it right."
Robbie Hummel was doing the Purdue game last night and he was critical of the number of replay reviews in that game...
To paraphrase...
"You can't be reviewing every play. It takes too long and detracts from the game. Anybody who watched the last minute of the Michigan/Northwestern game knows this. I would much prefer a system of coach's challenges like the NBA uses. The NBA has it right."
How about this scenario:
After watching the video with the first half hands to the face and giving him a pass, the refs see him hopping around after the Leach contact and T him up. If I was the ref (and I reffed a lot of games in my younger days) I would have been tempted.
Except decisions about a flagrant foul are reviewed at the judgement of the refs in the NBA too I'm pretty sure. It wouldn't change this situation.
I'm really just talking about the constant reviews. It is detracting from the game.
I'm being convinced that this is true more often than expected for paid professionals.
Oh yeah and in the nba the reviews are very quick. The college review process is insanely long. Also not sure if anyone was watching last night but in the UConn butler game a ball blatantly went off of the UConn player, they reviewed it, and didn’t think it went off his leg. So even with the reviews, they often mess it up. There has to be better refs than these.
Oh, the one in the first half.... ok... I agree. There was a similar review in the second half (or maybe overtime) in crunch time where it was clearly off Butler. I thought you were referring to that.
Ha, and the guy who got kicked in the nuts, somehow was able to go shoot free throws just fine.
Only a hunch -- but it wouldn't be surprising if the rules committee "re-visits" this rule in the off-season. Quite a bit of subjectivity in it, making enforcement hard to officiate. Yesterday there was a highly controversial ejection of Texas Tech player (with resultant dismissal of his ballistic coach) over the same kind of call in a game vs U of Houston. (Red Raiders managed to get it into OT and wound up winning.)
Coral's post a few before yours showed the play that resulted in the Texas Tech player getting tossed (but not the subsequent coach meltdown and objection). It's nuts (pun intended) to get a flagrant 2 for that action.
I have to disagree. That absolutely should be called as a Flagrant 2. That kick out on the shot is unnatural and intentional and is something that certain players modified their movements to get calls of fouls while shooting on the other team. Certain players have been known for it. That it went against him might slow it down, He intended to kick out his leg in an attempt to get a call on the defender, That it connected where it did might not have been intentional, but the move itself was. I would suggest that that call needs to be made and that in fact it would be my wish that anytime that the leg makes contact with the defender it needs to be called an O foul and in fact an intentional foul. It is a dangerous and intentional move and that would stop it real quick
If the coach melted down on that call, he should be ejected. It was an unnatural and intentional kickout by his player in an attempt to get a foul called on the D. That the kick landed where it did might not have been intentional but the kick out was. That it landed where it did deserved the ejection.
There’s 2 problems with this take:
1) This wasn’t a shot, it was a pass. He had to jump to throw the ball over a trap. There’s no way he’s trying to draw a non-shooting foul 4 minutes into a game. On the road early in an important game a guy averaging 15 and 8 isn’t intentionally kicking someone out of absolutely nowhere.
2) He’s not a perimeter player (95% of his made shots this year are 2s) and he’s a bad FT shooter. Yes some players look to create contact on 3s but this guy isn’t Reggie Miller or James Harden or even our own Ty Berry who has been known to seek a whistle on a 3.
There is nothing that looked intentional. No one is looking to kick someone else in that region when passing the ball. They are playing basketball.
Oh, man! Sorry hdhntr, but that didn't look intentional at all. He was jumping up and back to make a long pass over the double team. His natural momentum caused his leg to swing up. That's a terrible call. I'm not even sure that's a foul as the defender has to give him some space to operate. Maybe an offensive foul, but no way it should be any more than a common foul.
