YAWWNNN KU-Buffs 10 PM
-
These are games we cannot afford to lose if we want to preserve any prayer of competing for a conference championship. Houston, Iowa State, and Texas Tech are not going to lose any games, home or away, to Colorado-caliber teams, so we can't either.
-
Our "performances" against WVU and UCF have us behind the 8-ball, as those are games the other contenders simply will not come close to losing. But if we are almost perfect from here on out we have a chance.
-
@Jayhawk_69 I guess TT barely beat CO
-
@crimsonblu22 Took a forearm to the face from CU center. The refs said it was a no foul basketball type play. Pissed off Flory.
-
@Jayhawk_69 How do you say a tech would be stupid when it's been the rule forever? You can't take the ball from the inbounder or it's a tech. That's been a rule forever. He was standing out of bounds and was touching the ball when it was still in his hands.
-
They scored 9 points in the last minute or less. We won the battle on the boards 45 - 33.
-
This damn conference is loaded with really good teams and so road wins are gold.
-
I feel like the likes of Arizona and Houston have had pretty easy start to the conference season. Believe Houston barely beating Tech at home is the only marquee matchup either team has had. Losing to both UCF and WV clearly hurts us when we basically crapped our pants for a stretch in the second half but I have very little doubt that teams at the top will start losing some games soon. I think the conference champions will have 3-4 losses before it’s said and done.
-
@wissox83 It very well may be a rule, but if it is it is a stupid one. If a player's momentum carries him out of bounds after a layup, that player should have the opportunity to turn around and run back in bounds. If the rules say that an inbounder can throw the ball at an opposing player whose momentum carried him out of bounds and who is actively trying to get back in bounds to draw an automatic technical foul, then that rule needs to change.
-
@wissox83 Its also incorrect that "He was standing out of bounds and was touching the ball when it was still in his hands". The ball had left the inbounder's hands. The inbounder chose to throw the ball to Melvin Council.
-
@Tallturd1 They called it a common foul. Not a flagrant 1.
-
@patoh3 are we talking about the poke in the eye or a different one? I'm confused. The one I'm thinking of they played on, nothing. Should've called a common foul. The viewed it.
-
@crimsonblu22 yes, the poke in the eye where they reviewed it and called it a common foul.
-
@Jayhawk_69 You're letting your bias influence your opinion. I went back and watched. Melvin was way over the line and as I saw it was touching the ball when it was in his hands. Not getting in a pissing match over it, so whatever, doesn't matter now, but obviously I thought we caught a huge break there.
-
We caught a break because it should have been out of bounds off Council but a technical foul would be been preposterous.
I suppose where we disagree is that you think players should not be allowed to be carried out of bounds by their momentum, while I think it is fine, so long as you get back in bounds.
-
Whistle would (should) have just been a re- inbounds. Ball has to be in the inbounder's hands with contact for a T. Inbounding players would be throwing it off guys climbing off photographers and cheerleaders all the time to get a cheap technical if just touching (or getting touched by) an inbound pass was that egregious.
-
@BeddieKU23 ya I totally agree to win a road game in this league is Huge, Look at Cinn giving Arizona all they wanted for most of their game.
-
@wissox83 I think credit would have been given that the inbounder didn't give melvin a chance to clear the area after he got up. This wasn't the typical play that the technical foul rule you are referencing covers where a defender is set guarding the ball or there is intent to hit the ball early. So while yes, the rules could perhaps call for a tech on the play, I think it is also fair to say the spirit of the rules would not call for that.
-
@MR11 You could be right.
-
I buy this argument as well: The "spirit of the rules" would not call for a T in this case. The proper way to officiate that is to blow the whistle and restart the inbound play. (Or let MCJr go DAWG and get the steal and layup! I don't say this often, but... Good No-Call, Ref!)
The thing I don't like about 'spirit of the rules' is the way I've seen contact to the head area officiated.
The "spirit of the rule" in the Colorado game was that a hand across Flory's face was incidental contact and not a flagrant.
This season, I've seen games where that kind of contact and, frankly less, get upgraded to flagrant. Specifically, I recall a guy putting his head in the space where another player was catching the ball, and in that motion, the elbow hit the defender in the head. I've seen one game where that was a flagrant and another where they called the foul on the defender for being in the cylinder.
Regardless, officials need to be more uniform in how they determine what contact in the head and neck area should really be considered "flagrant".
Someone clearly hit Tre in the face and there was no call. Maybe it was friendly fire...
