January can get [stuffed].
Printable View
January can get [stuffed].
So — should I bother reading it or not?
Incidental to what? It was not a basketball play. He was making no attempt to play offense or defense, so it cannot be incidental contact. He was celebrating, and he happened to catch an opponent square in the throat. It's a defined flagrant 1. It's not even correctly called as a common foul. The refs are required by the rules to assess a flagrant 1. They failed to make the correct call, pure and simple.
Just to be completely clear, it's not the reason that Duke lost the game. Not at all. It was, however, an egregiously bad reffing decision.
My original take. I don't mind if you disagree. Perfectly reasonable to. I even disagreed with me. I think it's how the refs interpreted it.
"I've only ever seen one play like that and it seems to me that Singler did something similar to an opposing player once. But that was before the current flagrant versus intentional rules. Because it was inadvertent and after the play then I understand the no call. Since it is such a singular play I would almost approach it like inadvertent contact from a player running his head into the head of a player behind him when the ball switches possession. It can be called a foul because contact clearly occurs that is foul worthy. But I do understand why they didn't call a foul there. This one is such a special case that I can completely understand why you feel differently and I don't think you're wrong. I just understand why it was officiated the way it was. I do think you have to wonder if there were 7 minutes left in the game if a foul is called there. And if it would have been, then it should have been called in this situation as well."
Lots of meetings
Does everyone have classified information at their house?