For the millionth time, I know this. That is irrelevant. Point is, IF these calls would have went AGAINST UK, that "great whistle" comment would not be in your vocab. UK could have gotten a great whistle all night---But had those calls went the other way?
Let me try and explain this a tad better.....
The correct answer is (A)! No way Shep touches the guy if he don’t kick his leg out. It’s pretty simple.
Not really. Agree no way Shep hits him. But that doesn't answer the wuestion of intent. Taylor does that. AS does Dillingham.
Dilly should’ve been called for it as well. IMO it’s like tripping a player. It’s also like flipping and players running down the floor with a defender beside them and throwing their head back. It should be called everytime imo.
I don't agree UNLESS its a huge deviation from his NORMAL shot. Dilly and Taylor have unorthodoxed shots. Cant penalized them for it---Just like you cant penalized the defense for it. If they had called Dilly for an offensive foul, the call would have been just as bad as it was vs TAMU.
Seems he had a slight hitch. Maybe not. Either way, its a ridiculous call. It wasn't anything egregious. And you know as well as I do that had this been againist UK, BBN would be Defcon 4.
I don't like the call but it doesn't matter what I think. He kicked out his leg and initiated contact with the defender, which also caused the defender to fall down. Is that not the definition of a foul?
I don't agree. especially with those videos of him shooting lay-ups. And on a few of his jumpers, you can see that, at times, he led with his left leg/foot.
Look at his 3 from nearly the same spot on the floor where I linked the video near the 16 second mark. He's straight up and down. That was clearly intentional to kick out.
I saw that...I also saw to other attempts where led with is left foot, as well.
You know you are reaching hard on this, bro. IDK why. He was trying to be sly and draw a "foul" call/flop. It is obvious. Makes no difference who the call was against. Why are you making it about that? We are simply discussing what is a foul and what isn't, by rule.
How am I reaching? Look if the official felt that was intentional, cool. I don't. ANd if he did, well UK had better hope he doesn't call anymore UK games----Or be thankful he didn't decide to get Dilly, or DJ on the same call.
I have said I don't agree with it, but the intent is painfully obvious. If you can't see that perhaps you should hang up the zebra suit.
Naaah, I'm good. This could get called to infinity. I understand intent. If this were a situation where TAMU was down three, and desparate, etc...I could see him trying to draw a foul. But not the case. They were up four. If he misses----still up four. So understand game situation. Game management here. Let the play process, and ask---"Is there intent---is he trying to draw a foul....But why would he?I have said I don't agree with it, but the intent is painfully obvious. If you can't see that perhaps you should hang up the zebra suit.
Players do dumb shit all the time. Who knows why they do it. Why do defenders even bother to defend 3 point shooters in the final seconds when they are up by 4? How many times do those guys draw fouls? Sometimes they make the 3 and 1 to send it to OT. Total brain fart. Again, I don't like that call, but at the same time it wasn't just based on nothing as many seem to think.
Thanks for posting that. Radford hadn't shot like that all game. He knew what he was doing...thankfully Sheppard didn't get hurt, he the last guy UK could afford to lose.
About the GT. Rule needs changed. If they were allowed to review it then---then UK would have gotten the ball. But not because of the arrow, but because they had possession.
Why is the rule to wait until the next timeout? That's insane. To save time? They already suck at that. And when it comes at the expense of the wrong call it really changes things.
. Same way with reviewing 2/3 point shot. Explanation I got---"not to interrupt the flow of the game..." Which is fukin comical. Its ok to stop the game for 3 minutes to put .1 tenth of a second on the clock...or to make sure right foul, etc.....But naaaaaah----cant do that for BI/GT.
Right, it is so bizarre! Especially when you could be playing extended time before the correct call is made and points are either awarded or taken off the board well after the fact. Could alter the way teams play based on what they think the score is when it's late in close games. Anything that can potentially alter the score needs to be reviewed and resolved immediately.
I enjoy talking to you on the phone, because you are a really good listener,
It in case book. I'd have to look it up. But the reading is close to....."If not considered part of the shot, and deemed with the inetent to create contact....----It can be an offensive foul.
No. There is no "eritten", specific detail. None that I have seen. I don't keep up as much as I once did; I rarely work CBB anymore. And if I do, its usually NAIA. During our meetings, this has been discussed, and thoroughly..There needs to be intent. Otherwise, what parameters do we have? this type of play/call usually sticks out, and is obvious. ANd it had better be.
If the kick out is difficult to call then at least we should stop rewarding it with a foul call.
I agree.
Wrong! A few of us has said it should’ve been called on Dilly and we lost the game. Seems like you’re reaching man. The dude stuck his leg out and tripped a player. It was obvious. If you don’t see that how have you made it as a ref?
Sure......Should have been, and was, are two different things. If those three calls happened vs UK, dude there would be 400+ fukin pages talking about how bad the refs are, how they hate UK----etc, etc...But since the calls went your way, well they(calls) were obvious...plain as day man. Heck we even said Dilly shuld have been called for it; which is dumb as ****.
Be honst here...How would have reacted if that call went against UK? Not them calling a foul on Shep, but that was shep shooting, and they called it offensive?
Well since I’m saying that Dilly should’ve been called for the exact same thing I’m guessing I wouldn’t have reacted like you want me to say I would. I think it should’ve been a foul on both players. I think Dilly got away with one. Myself along with several other UK fans felt like UK got a favorable whistle that game. I have even said that two or three of the rebounds that Ugo got should’ve been over the back calls against him. I’m not one of those fans that thinks the refs are out to get UK and I’ll say if I think a call is bs no matter if it’s against UK or the opposing team. In this case, the ref got it right.
I see it called every now and then, but it's rare. It happens virtually every possession though (most people don't seem to realize how fast 3 seconds goes by or they don't give a shit). But if refs were busy counting down every time an offensive player put a foot in the lane they wouldn't be worth a shit catching anything else going on. So, when it is called, it seems like it's only when it's painfully obvious (meaning it has been waaaay longer than 3 seconds).
UGA set up camp in the paint on offense the entire 2nd half. It was never called.
