MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: tower912 on December 12, 2022, 05:59:11 PM
-
I could see a flagrant 1. I did not see intent. Of course, we did not get to see multiple angles and the domer sold it like Neymar. The thing that could add to the intent is that David was in a really bad stretch and may have been frustrated. I don't see how that can be factored.
24 hours later, flagrant 1.
-
TV announcers seemed surprised also.
-
I too thought flagrant 1. He definitely got him but it wasn't intentional at all.
-
I too thought flagrant 1. He definitely got him but it wasn't intentional at all.
I don't think it was a 2 either, but I don't think supposed intention has anything to do with it right?
-
His head was in the dude’s shoulder, so he certainly couldn’t see what he was aiming at. And it didn’t have a fist or wind up, he was just running. It was a bad call, but thankfully the team responded.
-
I don't think it was a 2 either, but I don't think supposed intention has anything to do with it right?
Looks like you are right. From a March 2022 NCAA rules update release:
A flagrant 1 foul is two shots and the ball and that means excessive in nature or unnecessary or avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play.
A flagrant 2 foul is two shots and the ball and the player is ejected from the game. The rules committee added more words to describe this scenario, including brutal, harsh or cruel or dangerous or punishing.
-
I could see a flagrant 1. I did not see intent. Of course, we did not get to see multiple angles and the domer sold it like Neymar. The thing that could add to the intent is that David was in a really bad stretch and may have been frustrated. I don't see how that can be factored.
24 hours later, flagrant 1.
Tower, are you telling us that it was downgraded after the game? I did not know they could do that.
So to make up for the ejection, does he get 8 or 9 fouls next game?
-
I could see a flagrant 1. I did not see intent. Of course, we did not get to see multiple angles and the domer sold it like Neymar. The thing that could add to the intent is that David was in a really bad stretch and may have been frustrated. I don't see how that can be factored.
24 hours later, flagrant 1.
James Breeding has officiated 66% of MU's losses. That said, during the Bucky game, he was interacting positively with a special needs fan and their family. Love to hate him I guess?
-
I believe an intentional Shot to the groin is a mandatory Flagrant 2 as it is considered excessive.
I rewatched it several times because I couldn’t understand how they could have called anything. if you watch it close Joplin comes in low and then swings up. He knows he is going to get picked there and it appears he swings up and racked him with the top of his fist or forearm vs a punch.
I can see why they would call it intentional. I was hoping the broadcast would come back to it with a reverse angle. If they had that shot then it would have been pretty obvious what Joplin had done. No place for it.
-
Total BS call. Galactically not flagrant 2, preposterous he was ejected.
-
No, IMO a flagrant 1 was the worst it deserved.
-
Looks like you are right. From a March 2022 NCAA rules update release:
A flagrant 1 foul is two shots and the ball and that means excessive in nature or unnecessary or avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play.
A flagrant 2 foul is two shots and the ball and the player is ejected from the game. The rules committee added more words to describe this scenario, including brutal, harsh or cruel or dangerous or punishing.
Hitting someone in the nuts is definitely cruel, I can attest.
-
I just watched it a bunch if times. I honestly don't think that there is much in the angle that they showed on TV that makes it particularly clear one way or the other. I do note that his hand really does linger in the "area" for what seems like an unusually long time even after the two have already fallen down and separated. I don't know what that was about. It's enough to make me wonder if maybe there was a little F2 going on, if you know what I mean. Maybe there are other angles available. If there are other angles, I really hope Shaka takes a look closely and if it's questionable at all I hope he makes it very clear to the team that we're not Wisconsin (or Duke) and we're not going to tolerate that crap.
And for the record, I really like Joplin. Liked him before the ND game. Like him now. Once is an accident. Twice is concerning. I'm confident we'll never get to twice.
-
Didn’t Kolek get clobbered in the head shortly after that. Foul but not a word about potential flagrant foul. Gotta wonder.
-
It looked like he took Laszewski’s shoulder to the chin and crumpled like a boxer. I agree that his arm lingered but it didn’t appear like he was actually moving his arm, just falling to the ground as his knees buckled. He didn’t seem dazed after, so I guess not.
Davidson’s arm was definitely swinging up so it seemed easier to assume intent.
Laszweski could have been overselling too, just like he did later in the game when he looked like he got shot in the head on no contact.
I’m also of the old school thought that if your nuts are exposed you’re not setting a good pick. I think he almost took off Sean Jones head earlier in the game with his elbows up at shoulder height.
-
I thought Joplin's left hand was in an area that it shouldn't have been and seemed to linger there a bit longer than it should have.
-
I thought Joplin's left hand was in an area that it shouldn't have been and seemed to linger there a bit longer than it should have.
So on deeper analysis: Was it a bird in the hand or two in the bush?
-
Didn’t Kolek get clobbered in the head shortly after that. Foul but not a word about potential flagrant foul. Gotta wonder.
Yup...that was a forearm above the shoulders. I watched Jop's play a number of times (only one view), and my take was an official apology is necessary as claiming that someone intentionally did that is harming to the player beyond just that game.
-
I watched Jop's play a number of times (only one view), and my take was an official apology is necessary as claiming that someone intentionally did that is harming to the player beyond just that game.
Several thoughts on that:
- Nobody necessarily said that Joplin intentionally did anything. It's not part of the rule (although I'll admit that the nature of the foul and the ejection make people think otherwise).
- There is not really a good shot of it, so it won't get the viral explosion that either Davison or Allen got. Those videos were so obvious that people watched them and said, "He just punched that guy in the nuts." There won't be any of that with the video of this that we've seen so far. So, "harm" to the player beyond just that game isn't as big of a concern.
- As I said above, once is an accident and people can wonder whether it was intentional. Twice is a trend. That's where "harm" to the player beyond just that game really comes into play. Coupling this with the previously point, this won't ever be widely seen unless a trend develops and it becomes part of a montage. I'm confident that won't happen.
- Even though I don't think the one shot they showed on the broadcast was conclusive, I'll admit that after re-watching it I'm leaning toward F2 being the appropriate call. I'd really like to know if there was another shot and, if so, why the broadcast team didn't show it. It was ESPN2 for goodness sake...they definitely have multiple shots of that play.
-
Here's the play:
https://www.on3.com/news/marquette-forward-david-joplin-ejected-for-flagrant-two-foul-on-notre-dame-nate-laszewski/ (https://www.on3.com/news/marquette-forward-david-joplin-ejected-for-flagrant-two-foul-on-notre-dame-nate-laszewski/)
-
Let's start with the fact that that was an illegal (moving screen) missed to start with. It looked like Jop (while lingering) was trying to steady himself. The flop (one of many by Laz) is a point of emphasis and should have been a warning.
Unless the rule states explicitly that ANY nut crunch is a F2, that call is just the usual Breeding Special with drama. He loves to go to the replay to fall back on his grading for NCAA games because he misses so many calls in live action.
-
Let's start with the fact that that was an illegal (moving screen) missed to start with. It looked like Jop (while lingering) was trying to steady himself. The flop (one of many by Laz) is a point of emphasis and should have been a warning.
Unless the rule states explicitly that ANY nut crunch is a F2, that call is just the usual Breeding Special with drama. He loves to go to the replay to fall back on his grading for NCAA games because he misses so many calls in live action.
It also looked like Jop was the first player with a hand in his groin on the collision.
-
I understand the call. It’s important to look at the rule
The ‘hang time’ of Jop’s arm is likely what tipped the scales in the direction of the call that was made.
Section 15, Article 2(c)(2)(d)… Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental
…is used to determine whether we’ve got a flagrant 2.
Does the video look like there may have been contact to the groin area?.. yeah, probably… was it not clearly accidental? It may have been, but it’s not clear – arm seemed to be in the area for awhile.
-
Nothing that that sheisskopf Breeding does to us should surprise us at this point.
-
Breeding and environment lead to results.
-
I understand the call. It’s important to look at the rule
The ‘hang time’ of Jop’s arm is likely what tipped the scales in the direction of the call that was made.
Section 15, Article 2(c)(2)(d)… Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental
…is used to determine whether we’ve got a flagrant 2.
Does the video look like there may have been contact to the groin area?.. yeah, probably… was it not clearly accidental? It may have been, but it’s not clear – arm seemed to be in the area for awhile.
So is Jop's new nickname "Hanging Chad"?
TY
-
to find out if it was intentional or not?
why didn't they just ask him? ;D
-
Honestly when they said it was going to review, I thought they were reviewing a possible flagrant by Laz for getting his elbow/shoulder to the head and neck area. That was an offensive foul then and again on replay.