The play in question
- Thread starter ricko654321
- Start date
And it probably cost NU the game. The fouled Landborg multiple times in that sequence before and nothing called. By contrast the flagrant on the Rutgers player was for a move that was intentional and meant to do harm and he remained in the game. BS
Flagrant 2 Rule 4.15.2.c.2.d. “Contact to the groin that is not clearly incidental” — the announcer did not know the rule. But credit to the player for the pat on the back after, which I interpret to be kind of an apology.
He didn’t hit him in the groin; it was his stomach. Did you see him buckle over writhing in pain as he should have if hit in the groin?
“Credit for the pat on the back”… so again clearly incidental or also known as a basketball play? You don’t kick out a player for a basketball play that results in incidental contact with the belly or upper groin. He was clearly just trying to find space amid a double team as happens regularly in a basketball game. Citing a rule on multiple different threads doesn’t make it any less of a horrendous decision by the refs.
Congrats on the win.
I can see why Rutgers has a great defense, they foul just about every play. The refs don’t call fouls on every play. Their cheerleader HC running up the sideline, clapping his hands and pounding the floor doesn’t make it great defense, but the fans love it and ref’s don’t want the abuse.
What bothered me in this play is Ryan was making a basketball move. After he hit him, he apologized and made sure the player was OK.
He is not the type of player involved in some of the physical plays in a game. Give him the benefit of the doubt
If the play needs to be reviewed over 5 minutes it's not that obvious, give him a one and move on.
The play the Rutgers player made, you could see intent on the first replay and he was trying to injure Mullins.
Life isn't fair.
He is not the type of player involved in some of the physical plays in a game. Give him the benefit of the doubt
If the play needs to be reviewed over 5 minutes it's not that obvious, give him a one and move on.
The play the Rutgers player made, you could see intent on the first replay and he was trying to injure Mullins.
Life isn't fair.
So apologizing afterwards can influence whether or not the contact is to be considered “incidental”? To be incidental it must be
“contact that does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements”. What is “incidental“ is defined this and the other sections in Article 21. You are not even remotely correct. Also, since throwing the elbow is a violation of Article 13 section one it was by definition not “incidental.” You are just widely off base on this.
Reading the rule makes me think even more that the play did not warrant a Flagrant 2. If the definition includes “not clearly incidental,” then you can’t argue that position if the call required a 10-minute discussion and numerous looks at the monitor. If it’s not CLEARLY incidental, then that should be immediately apparent.
That logic is truly bizarre. It’s like saying that a jury can’t stay out a long time and then find no reasonable doubt.
I watched a lot of the bball world cup over the summer. They allowed the broadcast to show the reviews, including the audio of the refs. One thing that surprised me was that the refs were obviously instructed to go back to watching it at full speed. There was so much of "show me at full speed again".
If you watch something in slo-mo over and over again, pretty much everything looks super violent and intentional. While we are talking about fractions of seconds.
The play in question, Rugtgers is doing their thing, not just being aggressive but being physical, and Ryan tries to get some space. It hit the player where it hit, not sure the groin or stomach, but I am 100% convinced he did not want to hit any groins.
Just a stupid call that has an outsized influence on the game.
For you Rutgers fans, which have always been graceful here, I mean always, this was as bad as the call you guys had last year at Ohio State. Which cost you the tournament. It happens, it happened to us. We might have lost the game anyway, but it was an atrocious call.
If you watch something in slo-mo over and over again, pretty much everything looks super violent and intentional. While we are talking about fractions of seconds.
The play in question, Rugtgers is doing their thing, not just being aggressive but being physical, and Ryan tries to get some space. It hit the player where it hit, not sure the groin or stomach, but I am 100% convinced he did not want to hit any groins.
Just a stupid call that has an outsized influence on the game.
For you Rutgers fans, which have always been graceful here, I mean always, this was as bad as the call you guys had last year at Ohio State. Which cost you the tournament. It happens, it happened to us. We might have lost the game anyway, but it was an atrocious call.
Last edited:
Wouldn't the burden of "CLEARLY" in the rule and run the other way? In a typical replay review, the replay official (or refs, in basketball) are supposed to have clear certain proof that the original call was incorrect to overturn it. However, the wording of this rule means if it is not CLEARLY incidental, then it should be called a Flagrant 2.
Leaving that aside - I was very surprised to see it called an F2 last night, as I was not aware of the rule. But on one of the replay angles, you see Langborg take his left hand off the ball and swing his elbow into Davis. Was he just trying to create space? Probably - but it wasn't the same look as a guy with two hands on the ball swinging his elbows to create space.
And if the jerseys were reversed, I would bet most of us would feel the opposite way on what was called.
The Ogbole flagrant foul may as well have been a Flagrant 2 anyway, as he did not play in the game after that foul. When Cliff subbed out for the under 4 timeout for a last little rest, it was Palmquist that came in for him, not Ogbole.
I read the rule the same way as you. Burden of proof is it has to be clearly incidental. Otherwise it needs to be called an F2. The rule is supposed to take subjectivity out of the equation but it ended up with a game altering outcome for the Cats. It’s super frustrating.
Yeah I’ve had nothing but good and reasonable and friendly interactions with Rutgers fans in person at their arena (and football stadium) over many years but these couple guys coming to our board are doofuses haha. There’s always a few in every fanbase!
None of us really care about Ogpole being flagrant 1 in a vacuum, that’s totally fine and how it is normally called. It’s just the comparison of the calls that is laughable.
Nope... I would have still felt it was the wrong call. I wouldn't apologize for the win, and no one here is asking you to, but I think we have every right to be pissed off about that play. Not sure why I would ever go to another fan site to even argue the point.
If you are looking at that clip and think there is any intent to elbow him in the nuts, and this is anything other than a guy trying to find an opening to pass out of a double team, then there’s no point in continuing this conversation. Agree to disagree. Congrats on the win. Please leave our board.
Again, you do not understand the rule. He does not have to intend to elbow him in the nuts. He has to intend to elbow him. That renders it other than “clearly incidental.“ If the blow lands to the nuts, whether that was where he aimed or not, it is a flagrant 2.
I agree with what you say. And I also think that there might be room to criticize the rule, but not the application here. It’s not unlike some seemingly unfair football targeting calls which you hate to see, but result from a rule that is designed to take subjectivity out of the equation.
Dude, let me use a figure of speech to see if you understand things...
If you go to a funeral of a guy you thought was kind of a POS, you are probably not going to go up to his mom and say "he's dead, but no biggie, he was a POS".
Coming here, to dispute a call, is the same principle of going to the mother to say her son is a POS. You might believe it's true, but that's you man. It's not the mom, it's not this board. And yet you insist on being here. What is unequivocal about your choice is that, like if you went up to the mom, you are being a dick.
I can guarantee that if the roles were reversed I, along with many others, would've thought it was ridiculous to throw a Rutgers player out of the game for that. Truly a horrible decision.
On the other hand, Ogbole should've been tossed immediately.
If the roles were reversed, I would thank my lucky stars that we got to play a team without their 2 best shooters. I sure as hell would not go spout my mouth on the opponents msg board.
The internet is coming down heavily on our “side” of this, not that public opinion matters. It was a horrible call that altered a crucial game for us, already shorthanded. Very bad. But nothing that can be done about it now.
We caught a huge break that Berry was out, no question. I hope he makes a full recovery.
Good luck the rest of the season, starting with Indiana.
This is like the bowl game against Kentucky. I doubt many of our fans were saying, "perfect application of the rule!" when the Kentucky player was thrown out for slapping away the hand of a ref who was trying to help him up. We might have thought, "we're lucky a good player is out of the game," but we sure as hell weren't trying to convince ourselves that it was a deserved call.
To throw someone out of a game is a last resort and never seen it done without clear intent being part of the equation. There was no clear intent so it should not have been done.
You had a situation in NCAA FB where originally targeting led to a number of disqualifications but it was often unfair so they have since adjusted how it is called to reduce the impact and it isn't even used that way in the pros
I read the rule as
“If the contact was not clearly incidental”,
AND
“the contact hits the frank and/or beans”
THEN
the foul must be a flagrant 2.
The rule is *not*
“If a dude intentionally hits a guy in the balls, then it is a flagrant 2.”
It’s a weird rule. It was written by a dude with utter seriousness. (“Dude, get me in the chest, but absolutely stay away from the family jewels.) I respect the reason for the rule.
And because the way the rule is written, it’s a defensible call.
To me, the contact did not *appear* to be on the junk, but he certainly reacted like a guy whacked in the junk. (Note the “immediately cups his balls and bends over” action.)
Now, would this be considered “indisputable visual evidence” that a guy was whacked in the balls? I’m also not sure, but that’s not the threshold.
Hopefully we can enjoy that
a) sports are fun; and
b) Mullins was fun; and
c) the result of a game hinged whether or not a guy got whacked *in* the balls or *near* the balls (it looked higher than the balls, but, again, that reaction!)
Now, if the whackee did *not* get whacked in the balls but *pretended* to get whacked in the balls because he knew the rule, that’s some Belichickian stuff there.
I fell asleep and I haven’t even seen the last eight minutes yet, but I’m here for the balls-related (master)debate.
“If the contact was not clearly incidental”,
AND
“the contact hits the frank and/or beans”
THEN
the foul must be a flagrant 2.
The rule is *not*
“If a dude intentionally hits a guy in the balls, then it is a flagrant 2.”
It’s a weird rule. It was written by a dude with utter seriousness. (“Dude, get me in the chest, but absolutely stay away from the family jewels.) I respect the reason for the rule.
And because the way the rule is written, it’s a defensible call.
To me, the contact did not *appear* to be on the junk, but he certainly reacted like a guy whacked in the junk. (Note the “immediately cups his balls and bends over” action.)
Now, would this be considered “indisputable visual evidence” that a guy was whacked in the balls? I’m also not sure, but that’s not the threshold.
Hopefully we can enjoy that
a) sports are fun; and
b) Mullins was fun; and
c) the result of a game hinged whether or not a guy got whacked *in* the balls or *near* the balls (it looked higher than the balls, but, again, that reaction!)
Now, if the whackee did *not* get whacked in the balls but *pretended* to get whacked in the balls because he knew the rule, that’s some Belichickian stuff there.
I fell asleep and I haven’t even seen the last eight minutes yet, but I’m here for the balls-related (master)debate.
Last edited:
I was devastated by the unfairness of that call but at least getting some comic relief over these posts. Sunday’s game is a must win.
If three people need 10 minutes to look at the play, there is nothing clear about the play. Err on the side of caution and let the kid play.
This is like the goaltending call in the Gonzaga game where the NCAA reffing folks will realize after the fact that they seriously ****ed up and change the rule (there they allowed for review of goaltends, here maybe they will tell the refs to not eject someone for incidental contact anywhere in the region of the nuts). Unfortunately after the fact doesn’t give us either win back.
Onward and upward. Let’s beat Indiana.
Hoping to play Rutgers again in BTT. Do they want us?
