Think they will change the rule to give refs more flexability to interpret intent?
That rule has to be changed. My wife and I were talking about it yesterday. Honestly, what else can Lockett do in that situation? The guy was practically nuzzling his chest. And with big men, how can you not be allowed to clear out? There are three options: bring the ball down and risk a tie-up or steal, hold the ball straight up which is ineffective if you are facing similar sized defenders, or use your elbows to clear out. It doesn't mean you are being violent, you are just trying to play the game.
I get safety and trying to protect players, but sometimes accidents happen. Basketball is a physical game and people are going to get hit by inadvertent knees, elbows, etc. Just accept it and only make it a flagrant if there is intent.
I agree that there was no intent and see people wanting a rule change, but I think they should stick with it. There was a similar situation in one of the Friday games in a much more late game situation (which game it was escapes me right now). You risk tie up, but that's the risk you take if you get yourself in a bad position offensively. I agree with protecting the players, and I think offensive players will adjust accordingly.
Quote from: RushmoreAcademy on March 24, 2013, 08:29:45 AM
I agree that there was no intent and see people wanting a rule change, but I think they should stick with it. There was a similar situation in one of the Friday games in a much more late game situation (which game it was escapes me right now). You risk tie up, but that's the risk you take if you get yourself in a bad position offensively. I agree with protecting the players, and I think offensive players will adjust accordingly.
I'm curious, what adjustment could Trent have made? The defender was too tight on him to turn around. If he brings the ball down, he risks a tie-up or turnover. There's no way he could get a clean shot off. Any pass he attempted would have been awkward at best.
Like Barkley said, players need to be able to make basketball moves. I don't think in any way did Trent get into bad position. And the referees didn't see it until they went back to the replay, so clearly they didn't see him doing anything wrong at the time.
If they are going to keep the rule then they also need to add a section that states if the player who was injured feigned the injury there is a foul, two shots, and the ball on the faker.
I have see too many times this year guys over-react to shots to the head. Yes, in some cases the refs were onto him and did not call a flagrant but we do not want to see soccer's equivalent of diving enter college b-ball.
Because of the rule, you now have coaches telling their players to try to draw the contact and then sell it in order to steal extra possessions at the end of the game. I understand the purpose of the rule. We may now be seeing some unintended consequences.
I'm not sure if you meant the spelling error in the subject line, but it made me laugh.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 24, 2013, 08:35:49 AM
If they are going to keep the rule then they also need to add a section that states if the player who was injured feigned the injury there is a foul, two shots, and the ball on the faker.
I have see too many times this year guys over-react to shots to the head. Yes, in some cases the refs were onto him and did not call a flagrant but we do not want to see soccer's equivalent of diving enter college b-ball.
1)I understand why the rule is there, but if the fronts of their jerseys are touching, there's nowhere for Trent to go and he still has to have the ability to move around. It's very obvious on the replay there was no intent. I feel that a guy who rebounds, sticks up his elbows and starts swinging is a different situation. Difficult to separate it and "write" a rule.
2)If they're gonna start penalizing fakers, then Davante better clean up his act. I love the big fella and think he's had a great season, but the dude is 295 pounds, he's got to learn to stop flailing around like a fish whenever anybody touches him, the refs aren't buying the arms flinging in the air and then the slumped shoulders for a no-call. Play the game and stop acting, big man.
If they're going to call flagrant 1's like last night, then the refs need to call fouls on the guy who bodies up on the ballhandler.
Quote from: warriors1991 on March 24, 2013, 08:44:45 AM
2)If they're gonna start penalizing fakers, then Davante better clean up his act. I love the big fella and think he's had a great season, but the dude is 295 pounds, he's got to learn to stop flailing around like a fish whenever anybody touches him, the refs aren't buying the arms flinging in the air and then the slumped shoulders for a no-call. Play the game and stop acting, big man.
I agree Davante flails around but he doesn't go down and pretend to get hit the head to get a flagrant. Big difference.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 24, 2013, 08:48:50 AM
I agree Davante flails around but he doesn't go down and pretend to get hit the head to get a flagrant. Big difference.
Agreed. My point was more that I'm getting a little tired of DG's flailing and try to over-sell the foul every single time, didn't quite mean to compare to flagrant shots above the head.
Thought this was about an obnoxious seagull somewhere.
I get the need for it, but Barkley put it best that the rule needs to be tweaked. What's Lockett supposed to do...he raises the ball above his head he's clocking Barlow. If the defender is putting his chin in your shoulder it's going to get hit. Think of it like a batter leaning over the plate and turning into a pitch; he got hit but the Ump doesn't give him first because he made no attempt at getting out of the way.
This rule is the essence of the problem with taking decisions out of the referees hands and trying to make it black and white. Trent was telling the referee what he was doing and it looked like the referee said "I know that." The rule was put in place for a good reason - to prevent players from wildly swinging their elbows. But it was written poorly taking all discretion out of the referees hands.
The defensive player was 6 inches from Trent. There was no room to swing the ball from side to side down low, even if he did that the defensive player could slap the ball out of his
hands, Trent did the only thing he could do. Secondly, Trent was fouled first. Bad call, there was no intent, just a basketball play, the Defensive guy got what he deserved, an elbow.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2013, 09:15:44 AM
This rule is the essence of the problem with taking decisions out of the referees hands and trying to make it black and white. Trent was telling the referee what he was doing and it looked like the referee said "I know that." The rule was put in place for a good reason - to prevent players from wildly swinging their elbows. But it was written poorly taking all discretion out of the referees hands.
"Guys with stuffed shirts who have never played the game wrote the rule."
Barkley
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 24, 2013, 09:04:33 AM
Thought this was about an obnoxious seagull somewhere.
I thought it was going to be about the record of bird mascots in this tournament ;D
It's pretty simple. Call the foul on the guy who is in chest to chest contact with the ball handler so he can reasonably move the ball from one hip to the other without swinging the ball with elbows out. That kind of contact wasn't allowed 20-30 years ago.
I don't like the rule, but I don't like giving the referees the added burden of having to figure out the intent of the players action.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2013, 08:44:22 AM
I'm not sure if you meant the spelling error in the subject line, but it made me laugh.
Yes, is it some kind of bird-related pun on Golden Eagle?
Sounds like a Sun Times or NY Post headline.
I hope the Davidson fans aren't still reading the board! If they are, I promise our English professors are actually very competent.
The defender not only reached in and had his hands all over Trent's body, he was practically fouling Trent with his face.
The rule needs more than tweaking.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2013, 08:44:22 AM
I'm not sure if you meant the spelling error in the subject line, but it made me laugh.
Getting old I guess.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 24, 2013, 08:35:17 AM
I'm curious, what adjustment could Trent have made? The defender was too tight on him to turn around. If he brings the ball down, he risks a tie-up or turnover. There's no way he could get a clean shot off. Any pass he attempted would have been awkward at best.
Like Barkley said, players need to be able to make basketball moves. I don't think in any way did Trent get into bad position. And the referees didn't see it until they went back to the replay, so clearly they didn't see him doing anything wrong at the time.
I agree probably most with the point of the foul should have been first called on the defense, and you're right that once Trent is in that position there isn't much he can do if nothing is called. If they aren't going to call it, the adjustment a guy who isn't a ball handler can do is to basically not get himself into an isolation if they can't take somebody off the dribble and the defense knows it. Obviously that's unavoidable on a situation like a long contested rebound. Regardless, I don't think good defense, if it's straight up, needs to be penalized either by letting elbows go.
It really is tough. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I guess the one thing I agree 100% would be taking as much subjectivity away from the refs as possible in this case since it's everywhere else already.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/i_love_flagrant_fowls_shirt-rf31bded9fdfb4939a5e713d327bf8ade_804gy_512.jpg)
(http://www.residentadvisor.net/images/labels/flagrantfowl.jpg)
It didnt help that Rotnei Clarke is a huge fish and flopped around all game.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2013, 09:15:44 AM
This rule is the essence of the problem with taking decisions out of the referees hands and trying to make it black and white. Trent was telling the referee what he was doing and it looked like the referee said "I know that." The rule was put in place for a good reason - to prevent players from wildly swinging their elbows. But it was written poorly taking all discretion out of the referees hands.
I agree whole heartedly with this sentiment. The flagrant rule is the equivalent to a mandatory minimum statute, no one agrees with it but it must be enforced. If I'm a coach, I do two things to get rid of this rule: (1) cry like a b*tch every time there's any contact above the shoulder, including poked eyes, etc., to the point of being annoying/slowing down play (2) tell my players not to change their style of play in a Lockett situation, if someone wants to play you that close they expect contact IMO, and voice this opinion to the media. This stance doesn't change for tournament games or other big games, let my team be the martyr if it means basketball prevents going the way of football.
Quote from: tower912 on March 24, 2013, 08:39:41 AM
Because of the rule, you now have coaches telling their players to try to draw the contact and then sell it in order to steal extra possessions at the end of the game. I understand the purpose of the rule. We may now be seeing some unintended consequences.
Perfrect example was the IU vs. Minn game earlier this year.
I listened to the radio feed for a chunk of the game. Jamal Mashburn and the other announcer discussed when it happened and both felt the NCAA would tweak the rule in the offseason. Both agreed with the good intention of the rule but agreed you can't call a foul like that one. Jamal said he took a bunch of elbows and hands in his face and he was not bothered since he knew it was usually just accidental and unavoidable. FWIW.
I do not like the rule, because the refs have to much descretion. All they have to do is determine it was a basketball move and they do not call it. They seem to be tighter on it in NCAA tournament, but I saw several times this year when they did not call it, when they should have.