|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [13879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8801
Joined: 11/26/99
|
Was it a foul?
Mar 14, 2019, 6:46 AM
|
|
I was at the game and watched the replays. Initially I thought it was a horrendous call and that the shooter was not touched. Now I'm not so sure. In this photo it looks like a foul was committed. Was it a ticky tack call? Probably but nonetheless contact appears to have been made. This doesn't negate the ten minutes of the screw job we got from the refs, their effort to get Elijah Thomas out of the game, our scoring drought or inability to foul the ball handler with five seconds left.
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: Was it a foul?
Mar 14, 2019, 6:51 AM
|
|
It's rather a "Moot" point at this time,don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1077]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 1529
Joined: 8/15/15
|
Re: Was it a foul?
Mar 14, 2019, 6:59 AM
|
|
If a foul at all, it was well before the act of shooting with one to give.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3280
Joined: 3/7/12
|
Re: Was it a foul?
Mar 14, 2019, 7:05 AM
|
|
It was ticky tack but should’ve been a common foul. But never should’ve been in that position in the first place
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2926]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2387
Joined: 1/7/18
|
Re: Was it a foul?
Mar 14, 2019, 7:02 AM
|
|
Really doesn’t matter , if not for only scoring 16 points in the second half this would not even be a factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3280
Joined: 3/7/12
|
+1
Mar 14, 2019, 7:08 AM
|
|
Absolute choke job in the 2nd half and he should’ve pulled Mitchell, Reed, and Skara if they were going to keep jacking up quick 3’s and producing enough bricks to build Dabo’s new house. You can say there was poor officiating which there certainly was but no sane person can say we should’ve even been in that situation. Inexcusable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64517]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88957
Joined: 3/27/01
|
The ball handler is clearly not in the act of shooting....
Mar 14, 2019, 7:17 AM
|
|
so it should have been an inbounds play rather than sending him to the line for two free throws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9675]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 9378
Joined: 1/18/17
|
^^^Yep***
1
Mar 14, 2019, 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [695]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1440
Joined: 10/8/02
|
I don't see our other defender behind the shooter
Mar 14, 2019, 7:55 AM
|
|
so I am not sure this is the play in question. It certainly isn't the moment of the shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
The foul should have been called at the top of the key
Mar 14, 2019, 9:04 AM
|
|
when he had two hands on the ball handler. The refs chose to ignore that even though they knew we were trying to foul, then chose to call that ticky tack foul. As Jay Bilas pointed out yesterday, the scoring drought and everything else is irrelevant when looking at that one moment in a vacuum where the refs decided to ignore the foul at the top of the key that would have been a non-shooting foul and then decided to call the subsequent shooting foul. Plain and simple, Clemson got hosed.
If our guys had been wearing Tarheel uniforms, think that foul would've been called?
longtallsam® said it best yesterday: "Compare the call at the end of the game today, to the no-call on Mitchell's last second drive in the UNCheat game! Just compare those two plays, and tell me which one looked like a foul?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Should have been a no-call or on the floor
Mar 14, 2019, 9:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
