I'd like to get @IUfanBorden 's take on this. I thought this would be a no brainer. They went to the monitor and everything.
How is this not a Flagrant 1?
How is this not a Flagrant 1?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not a flagrant because it wasn't intentional and the contact was below the head. If the elbow got him an inch higher then it's a flagrant IMO.
As I understand it, it doesn't have to be intentional and honestly, how do you know it wasn't intentional?
Those players were doing a lot of trash talking most of the game (most likely started by PJ Washington). I guess I don't see a need for a forearm shiver there.
I just thought that was an automatic/no brainer Flagrant 1. I've seen it called for much less.
By rule should have been a flagrant-1.
That said to me it shouldn't be a flagrant-1. The player was coming down and in now way was it intentional. He was just trying to ward off Washington and did it illegally.
The contact was at the neck area. Above the shoulders and that contact does not have to be intentional anymore. Technically by rule it was a flagrant-1. I have an issue with the rule because flagrant-1 to me means intentional.
Richards put his hand on the dude's back but it certainly wasn't a push. He didn't even extend his arm, it remained in the same position as it was when he put it on his back. It certainly wouldn't have influenced the way his body moved in the air. The momentum of the rebound already had him moving in that direction and that remained fluid, even when Richards had his hand on his back. That said, I would've done the same thing the SH player did since Washington encroached on his landing zone while he was in the air.I see this coming down to what side of the fence you are on. In a way, he looks like he was extending his elbow deliberately. But that is hard to prove. Him being pushed from behind while in the air probably played a role in the optics of it.
Wow! How did your mom feel about that (assuming she was around)?I bet I've got that card somewhere in my old bedroom at my parents' house. I collected bball cards back then. If not, I'm sure my dad has several copies. He has one of the largest private card collections in the US.
True story: About 20 years ago he answered an ad in the paper and bought the entire inventory of a baseball card store from a widow. Took him 3 trips in a UHaul van to bring everything home. 20 years later and he is still working his way through all the inventory.
Wow! How did your mom feel about that (assuming she was around)?
Ha, that is awesome!She's cool with it. They have a really big house (minus 3 children) so lots of room to store everything. His den and the basement are wall to wall cards. The garage is loaded with supplies like card holders and stuff like that.
To this day, every night he will grab a stack of inventory and sort through it while he's watching a ballgame.
I saw this on ESPN yesterday. I guess that photo was taken AFTER they murdered their parents. Wow.
And this...
The committee tweaked the rules regarding elbow contact above the shoulders.
A minimum of a flagrant 1 foul is no longer required when an official is responding to illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent. Now, officials also can call a common foul on any illegal elbow contact, which may result in no free throws and simply a throw-in to the offended team.
This rule change is a stark contrast to the former minimum flagrant 1 foul rule that has been in effect for three years, which awarded the offended player two free throws and the ball. Coaches felt that, sometimes, elbow contact did not merit such a harsh penalty. However, officials who deem elbow contact to be excessive, unnecessary, severe or extreme are encouraged to call a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 foul.
The SH player was airborn and was basically floating towards Washington and did extend his forearm as he was coming down, but it could have been a natural movement.Not a lot of time right know; I have a game. But keep this mind while I am gone:
No one has mentioned someting quite simple---You have to allow the rebounder room to come down.
More later at 11....
Also, Was his extending of the elbow consider a basketball move? A natural reaction to a basketball play. All things officials take into consdieration.
Again, more at 11....
Borden will be back at 11 and tell us it was a basketball play and not an F1.The SH player was airborn and was basically floating towards Washington and did extend his forearm as he was coming down, but it could have been a natural movement.
I've just seen far less called an F1.
ThisBorden will be back at 11 and tell us it was a basketball play and not an F1
LOL.Borden will be back at 11 and tell us it was a basketball play and not an F1.
UK is evil. Washington plays for UK so he is evil. Extract that to: The Seton Hall player is playing for Christ and must be totally innocent.
Just watch.
Settle down John.....If Washington does that to a player it will be an F1. Because it was UK player harmed it is not an F1. What bothers me is that Washington can be hurt and the officials don't give a shit.
But that play did not cause UK to lose the game.
At the moment this UK team is not good. They need to grow up and play as a team. They have fallen from number 2 to 19. I think that they will soon be out of the top 25.
So then, after they are out of the polls, some of the Kentucky fans on this board will be left alone while the Cats claw to get back.
In the meantime we can judge how great Duke, KU, Michigan, Indiana, Louisville, Seton Hall, Tennessee and Auburn can be. We can see how dirty plays are called or not called.
Pretty much this. It allows officials some, "wiggle room". Years prior, this is an F1. There was no lead way. Now there is.And this...
The committee tweaked the rules regarding elbow contact above the shoulders.
A minimum of a flagrant 1 foul is no longer required when an official is responding to illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent. Now, officials also can call a common foul on any illegal elbow contact, which may result in no free throws and simply a throw-in to the offended team.
This rule change is a stark contrast to the former minimum flagrant 1 foul rule that has been in effect for three years, which awarded the offended player two free throws and the ball. Coaches felt that, sometimes, elbow contact did not merit such a harsh penalty. However, officials who deem elbow contact to be excessive, unnecessary, severe or extreme are encouraged to call a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 foul.
What rule would that be?By rule should have been a flagrant-1.
That said to me it shouldn't be a flagrant-1. The player was coming down and in now way was it intentional. He was just trying to ward off Washington and did it illegally.
I'm taking the over. And we will eventually get into:6 pages
Or, maybe you see it differently because its a UK player? What if this were a play involving UL, IU or Duke? Would you feel the same? I doubt it. I truly am amazed how convinced some of you are that the NCAA, officials, etc, etc..are against UK. I mean....some of you actually, honestly, wholeheartedly believe this.Borden will be back at 11 and tell us it was a basketball play and not an F1.
UK is evil. Washington plays for UK so he is evil. Extract that to: The Seton Hall player is playing for Christ and must be totally innocent.
Just watch.
It's not just UK fans, every fanbase has fans like this. I just dont get how people that truly believe that can enjoy games or even watch them for that matter.Or, maybe you see it differently because its a UK player? What if this were a play involving UL, IU or Duke? Would you feel the same? I doubt it. I truly am amazed how convinced some of you are that the NCAA, officials, etc, etc..are against UK. I mean....some of you actually, honestly, wholeheartedly believe this.
Scary.
Are you singling out UK fans? Others do the same here daily.Or, maybe you see it differently because its a UK player? What if this were a play involving UL, IU or Duke? Would you feel the same? I doubt it. I truly am amazed how convinced some of you are that the NCAA, officials, etc, etc..are against UK. I mean....some of you actually, honestly, wholeheartedly believe this.
Scary.
Not calling out UK fans, but saying the exact same shit UK fans say w/o repercussions.Are you singling out UK fans? Others do the same here daily.
Dude...There is NO fan base as paranoid as BBN. Zero.Nadda. None. Also, and correct me if I am wrong, I have yet to see a UNC, Duke, KU, IU, etc, etc... fan think the NCAA is out to get them. Or the officials. I have seen/heard this from BBN. Here. Rupps Rafters..Sea of Blue.Are you singling out UK fans? Others do the same here daily.