Unless the foul is downgraded right?
Correct
Sounds like it isn't automatic unless it was fighting. So he should be ok.
What goes into consideration for downgrading the foul? It seems kind of strange that D's elbow to the USF player's head will have the same consequences as the moron from ECU throwing two punches to the UTEP player's face last night.
I'm hoping they really review the "intent" word in the rule book.
NCAA Rules: There is no suspension for a flagrant 2, only fighting.
Don't know if the conference has some strange rules on behavior... but, he should be fine per NCAA rules.
well that sucks says my 5yr old
@mikebroeker: It is incorrect to assume Gardner play will result in suspension. Video will be reviewed by conference office. #mubb
I actually believe it is an intent issue, as someone else mentioned. If he threw a punch or elbow to intentionally injure another player. That elbow was just during course of play.
I stand corrected
#freeDavante
Quote from: Jay Bee on January 28, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
NCAA Rules: There is no suspension for a flagrant 2, only fighting.
Don't know if the conference has some strange rules on behavior... but, he should be fine per NCAA rules.
Thank God.
I think the slow-mo replay made it look a lot worse than in real time.
Quote from: INDYWarrior on January 28, 2013, 10:11:35 PM
I think the slow-mo replay made it look a lot worse than in real time.
Definitely. Chappelle Show covered this in detail ~9 years ago. Everything looks better/more ridiculous in slow-motion.
The fact that it came after the whistle was why it warranted at 2. I can't imagine that it will get him a suspension for Sunday, but he clearly ripped his elbow into the dudes face after the whistle, so if you go by the letter of the law, there is a chance he could get held out. It's a conference decision though, not NCAA.
If you watch the replay of the elbowing closely, Devante swung his elbow 3 times. He grazed the SF player with the 1st elbow swung to the rear and the SF player did not flinch. He then swung it forward and did not hit the SF player. Then he swung the elbow to the rear again and did not hit the SF player but the SF player flopped like a sack of dog dung. If you looked closely at the SF player after the incident there was no blood and during the rest of the game there was no swelling. I guarantee that if Devante had connected with a solid elbow there would have been some obvious evidence. It was an over reaction by the officials if you ask me.
Proud to say that my obnoxious ass was the one who started the "Free Davante" chant. A real shining moment in my Fanatics career.
Quote from: oneposteagle on January 28, 2013, 11:14:08 PM
Proud to say that my obnoxious ass was the one who started the "Free Davante" chant. A real shining moment in my Fanatics career.
Respect to your obnoxious ass. I laughed mine off when I finally figured out what you guys were shouting.
Quote from: JTBMU7 on January 28, 2013, 09:37:13 PM
Sounds like it isn't automatic unless it was fighting. So he should be ok.
AU-TO-MA-TIC ::)
Does anyone have video? They didn't show a replay at the BC?
I had a great view from my seat and Davante should be playing at Louisville on Sunday.
Quote from: JTBMU7 on January 28, 2013, 09:37:13 PM
Sounds like it isn't automatic unless it was fighting. So he should be ok.
you omitted the emphasis on "automatic", bro
Quote from: Warrior on January 29, 2013, 01:09:57 AM
I had a great view from my seat and Davante should be playing at Louisville on Sunday.
Did you see the replay? I wouldn't bet on him playing Sunday.
Quote from: murphmurphy on January 28, 2013, 10:35:24 PM
If you watch the replay of the elbowing closely, Devante swung his elbow 3 times. He grazed the SF player with the 1st elbow swung to the rear and the SF player did not flinch. He then swung it forward and did not hit the SF player. Then he swung the elbow to the rear again and did not hit the SF player but the SF player flopped like a sack of dog dung. If you looked closely at the SF player after the incident there was no blood and during the rest of the game there was no swelling. I guarantee that if Devante had connected with a solid elbow there would have been some obvious evidence. It was an over reaction by the officials if you ask me.
What? It was a completely warranted call. The rule was written specifically to prevent players from doing what Davante did.
The USF kid was draped all over Davante and Davante was just trying to shake him off. Refs should have called the USF for a foul right away and none of this would have occurred.
Quote from: murphmurphy on January 28, 2013, 10:35:24 PM
If you watch the replay of the elbowing closely, Devante swung his elbow 3 times. He grazed the SF player with the 1st elbow swung to the rear and the SF player did not flinch. He then swung it forward and did not hit the SF player. Then he swung the elbow to the rear again and did not hit the SF player but the SF player flopped like a sack of dog dung. If you looked closely at the SF player after the incident there was no blood and during the rest of the game there was no swelling. I guarantee that if Devante had connected with a solid elbow there would have been some obvious evidence. It was an over reaction by the officials if you ask me.
I think you and I must have very different definitions of the word "grazed." He connected pretty well with that first elbow. I'm on the fence about whether or not the kid "sold" it a little too hard (i.e., flopped), but I don't think there's any question that Gardner nailed the kid pretty hard. I hope he's not suspended for Louisville, but I wouldn't be surprised...you just can't have those guys throwing elbows around like that.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 07:45:13 AM
The USF kid was draped all over Davante and Davante was just trying to shake him off. Refs should have called the USF for a foul right away and none of this would have occurred.
Well, they blew their whistle for *something.* I'm not sure if it was a foul or a tie-up, but again, this is not the referees fault. It is 100% on Davante. You cannot swing your elbows like that.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 07:52:40 AM
Well, they blew their whistle for *something.* I'm not sure if it was a foul or a tie-up, but again, this is not the referees fault. It is 100% on Davante. You cannot swing your elbows like that.
It could have been over the back on USF, but he was more coming over his right shoulder. It was just a bad tangling of players. They both fought through the whistle for the ball. And unfortunate because we could use Ox against L'ville.
I do think the tie up with Ox at Cincy was worse than last night. The play of the game didn't seem chippy like Cincy.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 07:52:40 AM
Well, they blew their whistle for *something.* I'm not sure if it was a foul or a tie-up, but again, this is not the referees fault. It is 100% on Davante. You cannot swing your elbows like that.
As is sometimes the case, they waited too long then whistled the second incident.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 07:57:43 AM
As is sometimes the case, they waited too long then whistled the second incident.
The flagrant foul nullifies the first incident. Why are people insistent on blaming the refs for this? You simply cannot do what he did. Period.
This has been a point of emphasis for NCAA officials in recent years:
"When a player extends his elbows outside his shoulders, or when he swings his elbows at a speed faster than that of his pivoting motion, a referee is required to call a foul. While this swinging motion of the elbows is often used to create separation from a defender, a referee is obligated to call the foul regardless of whether or not contact is made. The consequences for elbow contact become even more severe when excessive elbow contact is made, resulting in an intentional or flagrant foul."
Technically, Davante could have been called for a foul just for swinging his elbows as violently as he did, even if he never made contact. In fact, this is rarely called in college games (though more often called in high school). The fact that he made contact made the flagrant a no-brainer. There is precedent for him getting suspended and also precedent for him not getting suspended. Obviously, we're all hoping for the latter from the Big East.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 08:01:36 AM
The flagrant foul nullifies the first incident. Why are people insistent on blaming the refs for this? You simply cannot do what he did. Period.
Why? Because if the refs act in a timely manner, the second incident does not occur.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 08:03:08 AM
Why? Because if the refs act in a timely manner, the second incident does not occur.
Do you have reading comprehension issues??? IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SWING YOUR ELBOWS EVEN IF IT TAKES FIVE MINUTES FOR THE REFS TO BLOW THEIR WHISTLE.
Stop making excuses. He didn't have to swing his elbows to get the guy off his back. And frankly I didn't think the whistle was slow anyway. He got what he deserved at it was entirely his fault.
Quote from: MU82 on January 29, 2013, 08:02:10 AM
This has been a point of emphasis for NCAA officials in recent years:
"When a player extends his elbows outside his shoulders, or when he swings his elbows at a speed faster than that of his pivoting motion, a referee is required to call a foul. While this swinging motion of the elbows is often used to create separation from a defender, a referee is obligated to call the foul regardless of whether or not contact is made. The consequences for elbow contact become even more severe when excessive elbow contact is made, resulting in an intentional or flagrant foul."
Technically, Davante could have been called for a foul just for swinging his elbows as violently as he did, even if he never made contact. In fact, this is rarely called in college games (though more often called in high school). The fact that he made contact made the flagrant a no-brainer. There is precedent for him getting suspended and also precedent for him not getting suspended. Obviously, we're all hoping for the latter from the Big East.
Exactly!!
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 08:08:37 AM
Do you have reading comprehension issues??? IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SWING YOUR ELBOWS EVEN IF IT TAKES FIVE MINUTES FOR THE REFS TO BLOW THEIR WHISTLE.
Stop making excuses. He didn't have to swing his elbows to get the guy off his back. And frankly I didn't think the whistle was slow anyway. He got what he deserved at it was entirely his fault.
Exactly!!
Point is, if the whistle blows on time, Davante doesn't swing his elbows. Awaiting your next personal attack, though.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 08:09:51 AM
Point is, if the whistle blows on time, Davante doesn't swing his elbows. Awaiting your next personal attack, though.
You don't know that. What if the ref blows his whistle "on time" but the defender keeps clawing at Davante, who gets pissed and still throws his elbows?
The one and only thing we know is that Davante threw his elbows up around an opponent's head, which is clearly against the rules whether it came before the whistle, during the whistle or after the whistle. Jeesh, does it always have to be the ref's "fault"?
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 08:09:51 AM
Point is, if the whistle blows on time, Davante doesn't swing his elbows.
It is completely irrelevant when the ref blew his whistle. He cannot throw his elbows like that. If the refs fail to blow their whistle in a prompt manner, can he punch the guy? Kick him?
Of course he can't...and he can't throw his elbows either. It's a f*cking rule.
Quote from: MU82 on January 29, 2013, 08:13:26 AM
You don't know that. What if the ref blows his whistle "on time" but the defender keeps clawing at Davante, who gets pissed and still throws his elbows?
The one and only thing we know is that Davante threw his elbows up around an opponent's head, which is clearly against the rules whether it came before the whistle, during the whistle or after the whistle. Jeesh, does it always have to be the ref's "fault"?
If the whistle comes on time and then Davante throws his elbows then Davante would be at fault. However, I think that if the whistle had blown on time and the proper first foul assessed, there would have been no elbowing.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 08:19:24 AM
It is completely irrelevant when the ref blew his whistle. He cannot throw his elbows like that. If the refs fail to blow their whistle in a prompt manner, can he punch the guy? Kick him?
Of course he can't...and he can't throw his elbows either. It's a f*cking rule.
Never said that the late whistle justified the elbow throwing. Nothing justifies elbow throwing. Said that a prompt whistle would have preempted the incident.
Any one remember Teddy Valentine's non-call AFTER review against Florida in the NCAA's when Jamil got clocked? This was less than that as both were going hard for the ball. Yet, the rule is clear...DG should have got tossed. However, both players were playing through the end of the whistle and then some as they were taught by their coaches...including taking a dive. Was it intentional or excessive? No..so hard to believe there will be a game exclusion as well.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 29, 2013, 08:37:08 AM
Any one remember Teddy Valentine's non-call AFTER review against Florida in the NCAA's when Jamil got clocked? This was less than that as both were going hard for the ball. Yet, the rule is clear...DG should have got tossed. However, both players were playing through the end of the whistle and then some as they were taught by their coaches...including taking a dive. Was it intentional or excessive? No..so hard to believe there will be a game exclusion as well.
He didn't take a dive. Just because there was a delay between the contact and the reaction in super-slow motion doesn't mean the guy took a dive. He got hit in the face by Ox's elbow and he fell down, as most people would do in that situation.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 08:01:36 AM
The flagrant foul nullifies the first incident. Why are people insistent on blaming the refs for this? You simply cannot do what he did. Period.
Because that's a ridiculous statement. He can't do that? Now we can't fight for the ball and we call anything that is a fast movement "violent"? Plus we have to have these automatic ejection and suspension rules because refs can't be trusted to make these judgement calls, so every little thing has to be decided by a way too specific rulebook situation.
You can't just say "he can't do that" without acknowledging the legitimate criticism at refs for being extremely inconsistent in how they let physical contact into games. But then drawing a ridiculously hard line about one play. He used his elbows to separate, he didn't punch him. Performing fast movements is not a synonym for "violent" and I'm sick of everyone saying refs can't be blamed for anything when it's their job to not allow a big scrum for the ball that ALWAYS leads to a move light Davante just did. What Davante did was no different than what EVERY player does when they get bombarded by a bunch opponents' hand checking, grabbing of their arms, pushing them off their pivot foot and finally reaching for the ball and pushing their elbows inside their chest to separate.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 08:25:37 AM
If the whistle comes on time and then Davante throws his elbows then Davante would be at fault. However, I think that if the whistle had blown on time and the proper first foul assessed, there would have been no elbowing.
That's the most messed up reasoning I've ever heard. You can't omit making a call because something hypothetically should have gone a different way. It was the right call. End of story. Arguing otherwise makes yourself and this board look foolish.
Don't think it warrants a suspension but won't be surprised if that's what ends up happening. 50/50 in my opinion.
My instincts tell me that DG will be playing on Sunday. Based on the rules he absolutely needed to be ejected but I suspect that the BEast will judge his intent. He was trying to get the guy off of him, not necessarily clock him in the jaw. In my mind, that factor (intent) is what must ultimately separate an intentional punch or intentional cheap shot elbow (worthy of suspension) and a heat of the moment 'get off me dammit' reaction. I guess we'll see.
Quote from: Aughnanure on January 29, 2013, 08:47:07 AM
Because that's a ridiculous statement. He can't do that? Now we can't fight for the ball and we call anything that is a fast movement "violent"? Plus we have to have these automatic ejection and suspension rules because refs can't be trusted to make these judgement calls, so every little thing has to be decided by a way too specific rulebook situation.
You can't just say "he can't do that" without acknowledging the legitimate criticism at refs for being extremely inconsistent in how they let physical contact into games. But then drawing a ridiculously hard line about one play. He used his elbows to separate, he didn't punch him. Performing fast movements is not a synonym for "violent" and I'm sick of everyone saying refs can't be blamed for anything when it's their job to not allow a big scrum for the ball that ALWAYS leads to a move light Davante just did. What Davante did was no different than what EVERY player does when they get bombarded by a bunch opponents' hand checking, grabbing of their arms, pushing them off their pivot foot and finally reaching for the ball and pushing their elbows inside their chest to separate.
Jay Bilas has used every platform available at ESPN over the past fortnight discussing just how inconsistent officiating has become in college basketball. Not only is it leading to dangerous physical situations for kids but Bilas also believes it has become a primary reason why we're seeing offensive execution fall to such a low level.
Quote from: Aughnanure on January 29, 2013, 08:47:07 AM
Because that's a ridiculous statement. He can't do that? Now we can't fight for the ball and we call anything that is a fast movement "violent"? Plus we have to have these automatic ejection and suspension rules because refs can't be trusted to make these judgement calls, so every little thing has to be decided by a way too specific rulebook situation.
You can't just say "he can't do that" without acknowledging the legitimate criticism at refs for being extremely inconsistent in how they let physical contact into games. But then drawing a ridiculously hard line about one play. He used his elbows to separate, he didn't punch him. Performing fast movements is not a synonym for "violent" and I'm sick of everyone saying refs can't be blamed for anything when it's their job to not allow a big scrum for the ball that ALWAYS leads to a move light Davante just did. What Davante did was no different than what EVERY player does when they get bombarded by a bunch opponents' hand checking, grabbing of their arms, pushing them off their pivot foot and finally reaching for the ball and pushing their elbows inside their chest to separate.
It's simple.
You can't punch a guy...you can't kick a guy....you can't throw an elbow that lands above the shoulders. It's a rule.
Hardly ridiculous.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 08:57:13 AM
It's simple.
You can't punch a guy...you can't kick a guy....you can't throw an elbow that lands above the shoulders. It's a rule.
Hardly ridiculous.
The problem with this is it implies intent. I just have a hard time throwing a guy out of a game for an elbow that would have hit a taller guy in the chest. If it's clear they're aiming above the shoulders, that's one thing.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on January 29, 2013, 08:49:45 AM
That's the most messed up reasoning I've ever heard. You can't omit making a call because something hypothetically should have gone a different way. It was the right call. End of story. Arguing otherwise makes yourself and this board look foolish.
Don't think it warrants a suspension but won't be surprised if that's what ends up happening. 50/50 in my opinion.
If this is the most messed up reasoning you've ever heard you have led a sheltered life. This entire argument is based on hypotheticals as is much of the discussion on this, or any other sports forum.
Look at it this way, its' a close game. both teams are playing hard, both players are intensely battling for a loose ball. The larger, stronger player has possession and position. However, the opponent is draped over his shoulder/back and continues to harass and bang the bigger guy. An aware ref immediately recognizes the situation and blows the whistle for a foul on the offending player. Satisfied that he is being protected, the bigger guy starts walking to the line to the line to shoot FT's. Timely whistle, no need for the big guy to try to protect/possess the rock, no flagrant foul on the big guy. End of story.
TWITTER TRACKER!!!
MarquetteMBB @MarquetteMBB
League officials reviewed Davante Gardner play vs. USF. Play was officiated correctly on court. No additional penalty. #mubb
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 29, 2013, 09:03:04 AM
The problem with this is it implies intent. I just have a hard time throwing a guy out of a game for an elbow that would have hit a taller guy in the chest. If it's clear they're aiming above the shoulders, that's one thing.
You can call the rule ridiculous and I wouldn't have much of an argument. However it is a rule that was applied correctly. And Davante should know that.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 09:05:33 AM
Look at it this way, its' a close game. both teams are playing hard, both players are intensely battling for a loose ball. The larger, stronger player has possession and position. However, the opponent is draped over his shoulder/back and continues to harass and bang the bigger guy. An aware ref immediately recognizes the situation and blows the whistle for a foul on the offending player. Satisfied that he is being protected, the bigger guy starts walking to the line to the line to shoot FT's. Timely whistle, no need for the big guy to try to protect/possess the rock, no flagrant foul on the big guy. End of story.
Whoa...hold on here.
The ref did blow his whistle before the elbows were thrown. I don't know if they called a foul on USF, or a tied up ball, but the whistle was blown. I didn't even think that was in dispute here.
The flagrant foul negated whatever call was made.
But but but, this thread was destined to go on for another 5 pages. Damnit.
Quote from: robmufan on January 29, 2013, 09:06:22 AM
TWITTER TRACKER!!!
MarquetteMBB @MarquetteMBB
League officials reviewed Davante Gardner play vs. USF. Play was officiated correctly on court. No additional penalty. #mubb
Quote from: robmufan on January 29, 2013, 09:06:22 AM
TWITTER TRACKER!!!
MarquetteMBB @MarquetteMBB
League officials reviewed Davante Gardner play vs. USF. Play was officiated correctly on court. No additional penalty. #mubb
So will the USF player be fined for flopping?
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on January 29, 2013, 08:56:12 AM
Jay Bilas has used every platform available at ESPN over the past fortnight discussing just how inconsistent officiating has become in college basketball. Not only is it leading to dangerous physical situations for kids but Bilas also believes it has become a primary reason why we're seeing offensive execution fall to such a low level.
No one said you can't complain about NCAA officiating in general, but last night's refs did nothing wrong in regards to the play in question. The whining that whistles weren't blown fast enough, etc. is unwarranted.
Quote from: Aughnanure on January 29, 2013, 08:47:07 AM
Because that's a ridiculous statement. He can't do that? Now we can't fight for the ball and we call anything that is a fast movement "violent"? Plus we have to have these automatic ejection and suspension rules because refs can't be trusted to make these judgement calls, so every little thing has to be decided by a way too specific rulebook situation.
You can't just say "he can't do that" without acknowledging the legitimate criticism at refs for being extremely inconsistent in how they let physical contact into games. But then drawing a ridiculously hard line about one play. He used his elbows to separate, he didn't punch him. Performing fast movements is not a synonym for "violent" and I'm sick of everyone saying refs can't be blamed for anything when it's their job to not allow a big scrum for the ball that ALWAYS leads to a move light Davante just did. What Davante did was no different than what EVERY player does when they get bombarded by a bunch opponents' hand checking, grabbing of their arms, pushing them off their pivot foot and finally reaching for the ball and pushing their elbows inside their chest to separate.
I understand your point here, but you are missing the message. Davante threw his elbows, connected. This according to the rulebook was a flagrant 2 and the ejection was necessary according to the rulebook. The refs made the correct call on the floor.
It seems like the problem you have is with the rulebook, and not with the refs. The refs followed their protocol correctly. Whether or not the rule is a good rule is a different story.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 09:08:14 AM
Whoa...hold on here.
The ref did blow his whistle before the elbows were thrown. I don't know if they called a foul on USF, or a tied up ball, but the whistle was blown. I didn't even think that was in dispute here.
The flagrant foul negated whatever call was made.
that is the issue. when was the whistle blown, before or after the elbows were thrown. If before, I fault Davante. If after, I fault the refs for a late whistle.
Quote from: robmufan on January 29, 2013, 09:06:22 AM
TWITTER TRACKER!!!
MarquetteMBB @MarquetteMBB
League officials reviewed Davante Gardner play vs. USF. Play was officiated correctly on court. No additional penalty. #mubb
We're having so much fun arguing that nobody has stopped to say:
Thank goodness!!!!!!!With this ruling, both the refs and the league got it right. Isn't that all that matters?
Glad he can play vs. 'ville. thank you Jesus!
Quote from: TJ on January 29, 2013, 08:42:57 AM
He didn't take a dive. Just because there was a delay between the contact and the reaction in super-slow motion doesn't mean the guy took a dive. He got hit in the face by Ox's elbow and he fell down, as most people would do in that situation.
Glad you can judge that as well. I am also basing my observation in that he got up and sank two free throws. Ox hit him on one swing-by no question and whiffed on the second and he suddenly fell on the whistle for the jump ball. If you don't think he took a dive, and his reaction was delayed until coinicidently he got a whistle mixed in with a little embellishment, I think you are wrong based on watching live and in rerun. So be it. Guaranteed coaches teach their players to take the dive in those situations. That is what I saw, two players playing hard through the whistle. Either way, DG earned a F2 with the initial contact--dive or no dive.
It took the BE office less time to review and play and make a ruling than it took the officials to make the call last night.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 29, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Glad you can judge that as well. I am also basing my observation in that he got up and sank two free throws. Ox hit him on one swing-by no question and whiffed on the second and he suddenly fell on the whistle for the jump ball. If you don't think he took a dive, and his reaction was delayed until coinicidently he got a whistle mixed in with a little embellishment, I think you are wrong based on watching live and in rerun. So be it. Guaranteed coaches teach their players to take the dive in those situations. That is what I saw, two players playing hard through the whistle. Either way, DG earned a F2 with the initial contact--dive or no dive.
While I would like to point out that taking one on the jaw would not prevent someone from sinking free throws a few minutes later, I cannot comment any further than that. I haven't seen the play in 12 hours and I can't find a replay online. So believe what you want to believe. I choose to think that a guy who gets hit on the jaw and then pauses a moment before falling down doesn't qualify as a flop. This is a flop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0upQDkY-pg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0upQDkY-pg)
Can't blame the officials for this one. Can't blame Davante, or even the South Florida guy for taking a flop. Those clearly at fault here are the BMO Harris Bradley Center officials who had the bat removed before the game. The bat would have buzzed the South Florida guy and had him on the ground before Davante would have had a chance to throw an elbow.
Quote from: WarriorInDC on January 29, 2013, 09:11:52 AM
I understand your point here, but you are missing the message. Davante threw his elbows, connected. This according to the rulebook was a flagrant 2 and the ejection was necessary according to the rulebook. The refs made the correct call on the floor.
It seems like the problem you have is with the rulebook, and not with the refs. The refs followed their protocol correctly. Whether or not the rule is a good rule is a different story.
And the rulebook is there because refs couldnt be trusted to make their own decisions. Chicken before the egg to me, but I certainly don't like removing referee culpability from dumb rules.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 08:57:13 AM
It's simple.
You can't punch a guy...you can't kick a guy....you can't throw an elbow that lands above the shoulders. It's a rule.
Hardly ridiculous.
One of these things is not like the other.
They are all rules. Ergo, they are all the same when it comes to the refs call.
DG made contact to the opponents face with his elbows while swinging them. Regardless of any other context, that is by definition a Flagrant 2. The officials got this one absolutely right, as opposed to, for example, telling Buzz that Gardner had been knocked over by the basketball, as opposed to a defender flying into his chest with his knee. THAT call was blown. This call was correct.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 01:10:21 PM
They are all rules. Ergo, they are all the same when it comes to the refs call.
If the refs ever called every foul they were supposed to according to the rulebook I would take this point seriously - and Gardner would not have been in the situation he was.
But this is one that gets reviewed on the monitor. They saw the same replay those of us watching at home saw. They made their call based on that. And they got it right.
Quote from: tower912 on January 29, 2013, 03:45:50 PM
But this is one that gets reviewed on the monitor. They saw the same replay those of us watching at home saw. They made their call based on that. And they got it right.
Then they also would have seen hands all over Gardner and fouls before that play. But those calls aren't reviewable. The calls refs don't make are generally the most impactful ones.
I don't dispute that. I also believe that sometimes officiating dictates outcomes. All an official has to do is miss two block/charge calls on the same star player and the entire flow of the game is impacted. But THIS call was the correct one.
Quote from: tower912 on January 29, 2013, 03:52:30 PM
I don't dispute that. I also believe that sometimes officiating dictates outcomes. All an official has to do is miss two block/charge calls on the same star player and the entire flow of the game is impacted. But THIS call was the correct one.
By the rule. Yes.
Quote from: Aughnanure on January 29, 2013, 03:48:22 PM
Then they also would have seen hands all over Gardner and fouls before that play. But those calls aren't reviewable. The calls refs don't make are generally the most impactful ones.
They made a call....again, I am not sure if it was a tie-up or a USF foul, but the flagrant negated that call. If Davante wouldn't have swung his elbows, the original call would have stood.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 29, 2013, 04:21:02 PM
They made a call....again, I am not sure if it was a tie-up or a USF foul, but the flagrant negated that call. If Davante wouldn't have swung his elbows, the original call would have stood.
I believe the whistle was not blown twice and that when it finally was blown Davante stopped his activity and started walking toward our offensive end as the possession arrow was in our favor. He clearly thought that a tie-up was called. I wish I had kept the the game tape. anybody got it?
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 29, 2013, 04:33:24 PM
I believe the whistle was not blown twice and that when it finally was blown Davante stopped his activity and started walking toward our offensive end as the possession arrow was in our favor. He clearly thought that a tie-up was called. I wish I had kept the the game tape. anybody got it?
ESPN3 does replays.
Quote from: Aughnanure on January 29, 2013, 04:34:26 PM
ESPN3 does replays.
WatchESPN also saves every ESPN game on your device.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on January 29, 2013, 08:49:45 AM
Arguing otherwise makes ...this board look foolish.
A few years too late