Game Thread: Northwestern at No. 20 Michigan
- Thread starter mshelton33
- Start date
He just seems disengaged today. And has lately. Probably an injury, (GURU WAS RIGHT!
), but I hope he gets back to the Brooks we know and love soon.Love your posts, Smelly, but disengaged does not seem like the right word.He just seems disengaged today. And has lately. Probably an injury, (GURU WAS RIGHT!
I want to be wrong, that's for sure. Something just seems off. He's a warrior, but I feel like ever since Purdue when he got whacked in the face a few times, he has been off. Can't put my finger on it.
We've been awfully unlucky. I can't think of any inadvertent (as it certainly was) kicks to the nuts from an opponent against us, so I don't think we can claim any sort of bias. We've just had rotten luck.
In what universe is that a flagrant 2? A marginal flagrant 1, I wouldn’t blow a gasket for that, but a 2 is insane
That call on Leach was ridiculous. Big guy plows little guy, little guy falling down kicks leg out to stay upright.
Its a physical reaction. It is not a foul.
Its a physical reaction. It is not a foul.
It's a "letter of the law" call, isn't it? The refs aren't supposed to have discretion about that kind of contact. It's an automatic call.
Are there lots of examples of kicks to the nuts that don't get called?
Flagrant 2 personal foul.
A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing), while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:
a) The severity of the contact;
b) Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors, such as hard contact to the head or the defender winding up or emphatically following through with the contact. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;
c) The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while the player was in a vulnerable position). Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, the foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;
d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental; and
e) Any foul similar to the foul described in Rule 4-15.2.c.1.g in which the contact, or the result of the contact, is not only excessive but also severe or extreme.
A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing), while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:
a) The severity of the contact;
b) Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors, such as hard contact to the head or the defender winding up or emphatically following through with the contact. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;
c) The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while the player was in a vulnerable position). Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, the foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;
d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental; and
e) Any foul similar to the foul described in Rule 4-15.2.c.1.g in which the contact, or the result of the contact, is not only excessive but also severe or extreme.
"which is not clearly accidental"
I don't know that we can continue calling this stuff bad luck when it's the result of referee discretion. That isn't luck, that's choice.
I don't know that we can continue calling this stuff bad luck when it's the result of referee discretion. That isn't luck, that's choice.
Wasted chances. And then a blow by on defense. Gotta do something special this next possession that looks totally different from the results of the last few.
I guess the refs decided, since he kicked his leg out, that they couldn't prove that it was an accident, even though it seemed pretty obvious to us.
It needs to be changed to "which is clearly intentional", it is just way too severe a penalty for "not clearly accidental".