|
Replies: 17
| visibility 10
|
Dynasty Maker [3375]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
How can you review a no call againt
Mar 23, 2018, 9:37 PM
|
|
Thomas and then give him a tech (I know it was a good call) but u can't review what should have been a jump ball instead of a foul that killed our chance of a possible comeback. These refs are full of #### tonight.
|
|
|
|
 |
National Champion [7736]
TigerPulse: 97%
42
|
Blame rules not refs, jump ball not reviewable, foul is***
Mar 23, 2018, 9:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6338]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
didn't need a review..
Mar 23, 2018, 9:44 PM
|
|
it was plain as day to see it was a jump ball and the blind ref was right there
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7736]
TigerPulse: 97%
42
|
That wasn't question
Mar 23, 2018, 9:46 PM
|
|
Poster asked how one could be reviewed and not other. I didn't say I agreed with call
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4854]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [931]
TigerPulse: 43%
24
|
Re: Blame rules not refs, jump ball not reviewable, foul is***
Mar 24, 2018, 2:59 PM
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2868]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: How can you review a no call againt
Mar 23, 2018, 9:40 PM
|
|
Yeah, why not just re-watch the game now and correct all the calls... Start with the elbow to the kidney
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [55]
TigerPulse: 58%
6
|
Re: How can you review a no call againt
Mar 23, 2018, 9:43 PM
|
|
Why do we not raise enough cane with the refs and demand they review footage on bad calls?
Self scored 5 points there! Proud of our boys - great season. But needed someone to help Devoe in 1H! Self gave us no credit either for comeback!
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [682]
TigerPulse: 98%
21
|
Re: How can you review a no call againt
Mar 23, 2018, 9:43 PM
|
|
the refs wasn't perfect for sure, but clemson had its chances, too many missed free throws in last five minutes and that rebound by kansas when we had chance to cut it to like three was key to them winning, I've seen several times they review a possible foul and give a player a flagrant foul, thomas should not have pushed off the player in the neck area, that cost us a 5 point spread at end of first half when we had just scored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9362]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
Posts: 12175
Joined: 2011
|
It was not that good of a call -Both players were wrapped up
Mar 23, 2018, 11:40 PM
|
|
- arms around each player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [34376]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 10742
Joined: 2014
|
Re: It was not that good of a call -Both players were wrapped up
Mar 24, 2018, 6:45 AM
|
|
That play really needed a no call, but Self got his way. As an official, you can shout the players down and tell them to 'work out of it', because they were 50/50, although Thomas was fouled first. Bottom line, if the players know the official is protecting them, they'll wait on the whistle. If the official doesn't step in, they take matters into their own hands. That was mismanagement by the official...and costly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [970]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Re: It was not that good of a call -Both players were wrapped up
Mar 24, 2018, 12:00 PM
|
|
Exactly! The KU player actually had his arm around Thomas's back keeping him from getting position for the rebound or a put back. I imagine Thomas was not happy it wasn't called and may have been a little agressive getting unclinched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
It was absolutely a good call
Mar 24, 2018, 2:56 PM
[ in reply to It was not that good of a call -Both players were wrapped up ] |
|
Thomas shoved the dude's head with his forearm after the basket. Everything before the basket was just normal position fighting, Thomas got called for the shove after the basket. It was a good call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2950]
TigerPulse: 76%
33
|
the two were hooked . .
Mar 24, 2018, 12:03 PM
|
|
that you can see real time. Once that happens, you have to give some room for them to get unhooked. Didn't seem so bad to me . . not the problem with the game though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [931]
TigerPulse: 43%
24
|
Re: the two were hooked . .
Mar 24, 2018, 3:02 PM
|
|
Anything above the head, any contact above the shoulders, any contact with the hand to the head is automatically a Flagrant 1.
Self has the right to ask for a video review. The call was reviewed and made correctly.
Flagrant 1 was 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4885]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: the two were hooked . .
Mar 24, 2018, 4:54 PM
|
|
The T was called to keep the game in the ref's hands. If the call was not punitive, then chaos prevails...As the Detective in National Treasure says...."Somebody's got to go to jail"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13771]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 10961
Joined: 2006
|
Re: the two were hooked . .
Mar 24, 2018, 5:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: the two were hooked . . ] |
|
Not true ... you don't appear to know what you are talking about! Flagrant 1 is excessive or severe contact during a live ball, as when a player swings and makes non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulder. Thomas's F-1 was borderline "excessive". "Any contact", as you described, could include any incidental contact above the shoulders, including accidentally poking a player in the eye, or concussing an opponent, ala Shelton in the FSU game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 10
|
|
|
50
