blackdog
- Champaign
I know it worked out in our favor this time but B1G refs missing Kylan double dribble after the Davis rebound lol.
Illinois 71, Indiana 51 Postgame
- Status
I know it worked out in our favor this time but B1G refs missing Kylan double dribble after the Davis rebound lol.
Honest question: shouldn't this be a flagrant though? It's a clear smack to the head.
Last edited:
I had the same thought, but it could be argued defender was going for the ball.
"Going for the ball" doesn't mean it can't be a flagrant. If so, you could wind up and swing as hard as you want as long as you're close to getting the ball.
I think this one is a gray area. There isn't much windup, but he does swing and follow through, so it isn't like he's just reaching and bumps Wagler's head. Plus Wagler is in the air and therefore vulnerable. So I think it technically could be deemed a flagrant 1 (a 2 would require much more of a swing and/or forceful contact). But if one of our players were called for a flagrant 1 for this, we'd probably think it was a pretty soft call, so I'd be satisfied with a common foul on this.
I think the terminology is whether or not it was a 'basketball play'. This was a basketball play (going for the ball). It was certainly a foul but probably not flagrant.
"Not the result of a normal basketball play" and "not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player" are two examples of things that can/should be flagrant, but there are many others. The first example is "Causing excessive or unnecessary contact with an opponent," which is extremely vague. The others are for specific actions/contexts and don't apply here.
The flagrant 2 definition (part b below) actually discusses this type of play more than the flagrant 1 definition (the highlighted portion is what changed from the previous handbook, not something I did, since it's unrelated to this play).
It seems to imply to me that, even in a legitimate attempt to block a shot, hard contact to the head and/or winding up and following through could still make it a flagrant 2 (or flagrant 1 if not quite that severe).
And just to be clear, I'm fine with it being a common foul, but that's because the contact wasn't too severe, not just because it was a basketball play.
Couldn’t care less what we’d think. As fans we’re inclined to support our team to the fullest extent.
My point would be that in a typical college basketball game between two teams… is that play more times than not called a flagrant? As far as my memory goes, most times a player gets smacked in the face in that manner, it’s generally deemed a flagrant.
***yes I understand a foul needs to be called initially; the fact that it wasn’t is utter insanity.
Pretty even tempered given how awful the MSU game was earlier. It's hard for me not to hear it in that context. Unfortunately there will always be missed and blown calls.
I think in KW case, he's so good he's going to be targeted by other teams and it's probably best that he relies on his talent rather than playing the officials. I'm surprised at how many calls Fears got given his reputation. It's almost like he got *more* calls going his way. Wonder if that happens outside of East Lansing.
Mirk is such an unusual player. Total skillset - passes well, can bring up the ball, hit 3s, even from deep, can post up, rebound, play defense, and he's a physical 6'9". He doesn't wow you with athleticism but has good touch and uses his strength well. Seems like he's under the radar given how good KW is.
This kind of thing is how you build the case (see Lute Olsen) for getting more favorable officiating down the road.
Because Fears is an elite defensive player and Enright is terrible? It isn't really just a height thing, you can't pick on everyone... go back and watch Kylan Boswell guard JT Toppin (or Danny Wolf last season) in the post, can't even get the ball into them, and if they did, it was getting poked away 90 percent of the time.
Because they weren't switching. MSU's ballscreen defense the entire game was to put two on the ball.
Sure, at a game, I'll boo/yell at the refs for pretty much anything they do that doesn't go our way. But when looking at replays after a game, I'm not going to argue for something if I'd think it was a bad call on the other end, except to point out when the refs didn't actually call it the same on both ends. I'm not saying you need to feel the same way though
Yeah, and it was often a hedge and quick recovery rather than a double team or trap, so there wasn't much time to exploit a 4 on 3 like we did against Nebraska. Hopefully we're better prepared to face that kind of defense next time, though I'm sure just having Kylan back will give us a lot more options.
Yes, good find Geoff, O and staff
As a freshman!
- Status