|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
110%er [6582]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 8157
Joined: 1/2/00
|
Not only should that have been flagrant 1 it should
Feb 15, 2018, 8:08 AM
|
|
have been flagrant 2. This is an excerpt straight from rule book Section 15, Article 2d. "Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors such as HARD CONTACT TO THE HEAD OR THE DEFENDER WINDING UP OR EMPHATICALLY FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THE CONTACT
Also, "The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while player was in a vulnerable position)
This is exactly what happened. FSU guy blocked the shot, and obviously made hard contact to the head on the follow through. Rule book makes it clear that it is flagrant 2 regardless of intent.
|
|
|
|
 |
Head Coach [760]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 714
Joined: 10/11/10
|
That == truth!***
Feb 15, 2018, 8:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7470]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15404
Joined: 2/2/01
|
the first guy had already bumped
Feb 15, 2018, 8:45 AM
|
|
Him to cause him to go up awkwardly also. The refs totally swallowed their whistles and probably looked at the replay and were like “we f’d up” but still didn’t think it was flagrant. They can’t go back and call a normal foul so their hands were a tied to flagrant vs non-flagrant. I think the flagrant was 50/50 and they chickened out on that since CU retained possession. They need to be reprimanded for the initial missed calls at a minimum. Those aren’t checks up top- they are huge player safety issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [112]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 13
Joined: 6/3/17
|
Re: Not only should that have been flagrant 1 it should
Feb 15, 2018, 8:50 AM
|
|
We were picked to finish 13th in the ACC. All season, the refs have tried to help other teams in hopes of dropping us to that position. It doesn't matter if we're playing on the road or at home. We're playing 8. Last night the number of fouls called was about the same, but if all the fouls that Florida State committed had been called, their whole team would have fouled out. How many times did Reed get knocked to the floor with no call?
Also, I remember one play where the Noles player carried the ball from the 3 point circle to the rim without a dribble, and we got called for a foul under the basket.
It'll be the same thing on Sunday when Duke comes to town. They'll do what ever they please, and we'll get called for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Since when have ACC refs EVER cared about what the rules
Feb 15, 2018, 8:53 AM
|
|
say when calling a Clemson basketball game!!!!!!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Re: Since when have ACC refs EVER cared about what the rules
Feb 15, 2018, 8:54 AM
|
|
P.S. You can't call a timeout while in the air either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7470]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15404
Joined: 2/2/01
|
I’m unsure on that- would like to see
Feb 15, 2018, 12:54 PM
|
|
The rule. I believe it may be if you’re going out of bounds. I think they may have even checked the monitor but his feet both clearly came down inbounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64535]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88973
Joined: 3/27/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5622]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/12/16
|
Re: Since when have ACC refs EVER cared about what the rules
Feb 15, 2018, 9:50 AM
[ in reply to Since when have ACC refs EVER cared about what the rules ] |
|
Certainly not last night. flst was allowed to play overly aggressive defense during the second half. We did commit some turnovers of our own making, but if you go back and look many, many of the so called turnovers were the result of flst committing fouls that were not called by the zebras. Someone called this playground ball already, but in reality flst was allowed to play a game of "Rollerball" disguised as basketball. We could have and should have won this game with free throws; however you can't shoot them unless you are given the chance. JMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58406]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46320
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Basketball officiating, in general, is downright shameful.
Feb 15, 2018, 9:18 AM
|
|
There really are no "rules"; instead there are just apparently some general suggestions or guidelines that may be arbitrarily applied (or not) as the game official sees fit. In many cases, they'd may as well be playing on a playground with no refs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11103
Joined: 4/2/12
|
Bingo***
Feb 15, 2018, 11:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67788]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115447
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Not only should that have been flagrant 1 it should
Feb 15, 2018, 9:33 AM
|
|
that would require them to know the rule book though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3839]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5055
Joined: 9/10/01
|
The ACC way..Selective Enforcement***
Feb 15, 2018, 9:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
Yes, he "may" still be assessed, but he was not...
Feb 15, 2018, 9:54 AM
|
|
even after review specifically for the F.
May is a possibility, not a certainty or absolute.
I agree with no flagrant, it's a contact sport.
All the best to SM for a speedy one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2189]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1734
Joined: 4/8/99
|
This is a direct contradiction to all of those that said
Feb 15, 2018, 10:14 AM
|
|
last night that it was a legal basketball move. I’m still livid that the refs reviewed the tape but concluded it was not a foul while Mitchell laid on the floor and couldn’t walk. When someone gets knocked out, I’m sorry, it wasn’t incidental contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4935
Joined: 3/30/03
|
Re: This is a direct contradiction to all of those that said
Feb 15, 2018, 11:10 AM
|
|
And why did Brad not chewing some referee ### for lack of call . Guarantee you rat face and Roy would .
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7470]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15404
Joined: 2/2/01
|
You can’t call a regular foul on review
Feb 15, 2018, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to This is a direct contradiction to all of those that said ] |
|
Once they ruled it didn’t meet the definition of a flagrant then they can’t say but it was a regular foul even if all 3 officials agree after watching that they missed the regular foul call. It’s like in football, you can review for targeting but if there’s not then you can’t call a face mask or interference that wasn’t called live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
