💙❤️ Kansas @ K St 😿 — Game Chat Here ❤️💙
    KU Buckets
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    YAWWNNN KU-Buffs 10 PM

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved KU Basketball / Other NCAAM
    234 Posts 25 Posters 4.8k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • R Offline
      ROCKCHALK2025 @BeddieKU23
      last edited by

      @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.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • M Offline
        MR11 @wissox83
        last edited by

        @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.

        W 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • W Offline
          wissox83 @MR11
          last edited by

          @MR11 You could be right.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • bskeetB Offline
            bskeet
            last edited by bskeet

            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...

            Rock Chalk!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
            • drgnslayrD Offline
              drgnslayr
              last edited by

              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.

              I smell a run! (better buy more toilet paper)

              W 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 6
              • W Offline
                wissox83 @drgnslayr
                last edited by

                @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.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • Jayhawk_69J Online
                  Jayhawk_69
                  last edited by Jayhawk_69

                  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.

                  W 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • W Offline
                    wissox83 @Jayhawk_69
                    last edited by

                    @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.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • Jayhawk_69J Online
                      Jayhawk_69
                      last edited by

                      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

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • nuleafjhawkN Offline
                        nuleafjhawk
                        last edited by

                        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.

                        America! Where you have the right to be wrong.

                        bskeetB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 6
                        • bskeetB Offline
                          bskeet @nuleafjhawk
                          last edited by bskeet

                          @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. 🤢

                          Rock Chalk!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                          • First post
                            Last post