YAWWNNN KU-Buffs 10 PM
-
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.
-
I could totally be wrong on this... because I'm not a ref nor do I have their rules book.
I see this as a case based on two key factors... the reality for what happened and the outcome, plus the intent of both players.
INTENT OF BOTH PLAYERS: I don't think either player had intent to doing something wrong. Melvin put his hands up as he was running to get inbounds. The Colorado guy wasn't intending to pass it in hitting Melvin's hands, but it just happened. So it seems like neither player deserved a T. Maybe I'm wrong because of a rule somewhere.
REALITY OF OUTCOME: The outcome created a steal for Melvin and a score. That clearly should have been waved off. I can't believe this wasn't reviewed, but maybe they needed to step in and make a call in order for it to be reviewable. Once again, I'm not a ref!
-
I think Coach said on Hawk Talk that he thought it was a dead ball. Replay.
-
The ball becomes live as soon as it is in the possession of the inbounder, so coach is wrong there. The refs were caught off guard on a very unusual play, so probably want confident enough to blow the whistle. No whistle, no review. Good for us.
-
I'm surprised the play is still getting talked about this much later. It's probably partially my fault. The last thing I will say about it is that I do not know what the rules technically are. But I do know what I think the rule should be. The rules should not punish a player for having been carried out of bounds by his momentum on the previous play. They also should not allow a steal to occur while the player who gets the steal is touching out of bounds. Therefore, assuming fair and reasonable rules, Council's steal should have been nullified and the ball should have been given back to Colorado, without any fouls called on anyone. Ultimately, it is not that big a deal. Officials miss multiple calls every game, and this one was, in my opinion, not nearly as egregious as some missed calls I have seen (it happened quickly was unexpected for everyone involved, even Council, so the refs probably weren't looking at Council's feet).
-
Agree it's not a big deal. It was a poorly officiated game overall. That was a very unusual play.
It did change the momentum of the game in favor of KU. A 6-point swing in roughly 10 seconds of play (the block, layup, steal & layup) caused a timeout.
-
Yeah. Something I have seen is that some people who have called for Melvin to be whistled for a tech cite the fact that his feet were out of bounds. This is,
A) a strawman argument, for nobody, as far as I know, has refuted that Melvin's feet were out of bounds
B) intentionally misleading via reductionism, as it takes the play out of context and does not focus on either why he was touching out of bounds or whether he was given a fair amount of time to get back in bounds.
Ultimately, people are free to disagree with me, but the disagreement must be in good-faith. So, to have a genuine discussion, anyone who thinks Melvin Council should have been whistled for a technical foul must explain why they think it is fair that a player be penalized for being carried out of bounds by his momentum on a previous play, even if he is clearly trying to get back in bounds. If this point is not addressed, those who called for a technical foul on Melvin bring are bringing nothing of value to the discussion and are even interfering with the ability of others to have a productive talk about the call.
-
@Jayhawk_69 I think they should forfeit the game and play another one. JK
-
I always agree with Self on calls like that, you get some you maybe shouldn’t and then don’t get some you should. It’s ends up balancing out by the end of the year. To my point Flory got slapped in the face and put in a headlock in Manhattan while Melvin was called for a foul for getting elbows hard enough to draw blood. It was one call that horse has already been beaten to death. I’m ready to move on.
