YAWWNNN KU-Buffs 10 PM
-
@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...
-
I could be wrong... but it seemed to me that Melvin had his hands outward to defend while he was running to get inbounds and the Colorado guy literally threw the ball into Melvin. I think Melvin was as shocked as anyone that he was hit with the ball.
-
@drgnslayr This may be, but my review of the replay, frame by frame looked like Melvins feet were clearly touch out of bounds. It's just a really odd play and it's surprising that the referee couldn't taken a look at it. I really think CO got screwed on that. Worst case for them is what happened. Better case for them is wave off the basket as Melvin was out of bounds. Best case for them is he interferred illegally, basket waived, Tech FTs awarded plus the ball.
To be honest i don't ever remember seeing such a play and I've been watching basketball since Rick Barry shot underhand FTs back in the ABA when I was a boy.
-
Technically, throwing the ball at an opposing player or striking an opposing player with the ball (which is what the inbounder did to Council) can result in a T. So the worst case scenario for Colorado would be their inbounder getting T-d up (I would not advocate for this at all, as the Colorado player did not do so intentionally). The case for giving a technical foul to Colorado's inbounder is slightly stronger than the case for giving a technical foul to Council (as it was the Colorado inbounder who failed to give Council any time to stand up and get back in bounds), though it would have been a terrible call either way. The subjective, but in my opinion clear, correct way to officiate that play would have been to re-inbound.
-
@Jayhawk_69 Oh come on do you just have to argue? "The case for giving a tech...." "The objective correct way.." Both statements clearly telling me I'm wrong when this is a many ways to see it type discussion. Just stop being obtuse please.
-
I changed objective to subjective in my comment. I do not really perceive that there is an argument going on. Just some friendly sports talk
-
I've been on this site for a long time. I don't ever remember seeing such lively discussion about a call that went our way.
-
@nuleafjhawk said in YAWWNNN KU-Buffs 10 PM:
I've been on this site for a long time. I don't ever remember seeing such lively discussion about a call that went our way.
It's probably because Fran went out of his mind about the call, and went so out of his way to point out the advantage to KU.
