Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 105 of 105
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Jeff Capel is still wondering...and looking around for a ref to complain to.

    don't know if they showed it on the coverage, but none of the refs would talk to him, so he was somewhere around mid court looking for any ref with whom to plead his case.
    as mentioned elsewhere on DBR, and noticed by any fan of Duke, that when a questionable call goes against Duke there is no effort given to put up a replay but when even the most uncontroversial call that favors Duke generates multiple replays from many angles.
    There was no replay of that foul.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieInBrasil View Post
    Completely disagree. I side with CDu on this one, particularly on the play in question. Had the defender simply grabbed or pushed Bagley in the back, then yes, that should be an intentional foul. In this case, there was a second defender right there, as CDu pointed out, and the other defender made a play on the ball. In nearly all cases if the defender makes contact withe shooter's arm, no matter how far away from the ball, that will be a normal foul b.c the contact prevents the shooter's movement to make a shot. That by definition is a basketball play.
    I'm fairly certain that the second defender actually caught Bagley across the bridge of the nose. I would think that contact above the shoulders could/should have warranted a flagrant call. I've seen flagrant 1s called before for accidental contact. This was accidental, but was made while intentionally making a swipe at the ball. Much more egregious than clearing out after a rebound.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    If the shirts are only given away for free, it is not a violation. If they are sold, not so good. The “profit” part is the no-no.
    A simple google search for Bagley T-shirts will get many hits with many vendors, including Amazon and Ebay. Same is true for Trae Young. I was surprised by this, but I can only assume that this is not an unanticipated phenomenon for the Duke compliance staff.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by kshepinthehouse View Post
    https://tinyurl.com/yata3ytl
    not the same shirt.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by hibby91 View Post
    I'm fairly certain that the second defender actually caught Bagley across the bridge of the nose. I would think that contact above the shoulders could/should have warranted a flagrant call. I've seen flagrant 1s called before for accidental contact. This was accidental, but was made while intentionally making a swipe at the ball. Much more egregious than clearing out after a rebound.
    I agree, but that was the player from the side, not from the back. In fact, both of them got him on the head, which warranted a look. But simply fouling somebody from behind shouldn't be an intentional foul.

Similar Threads

  1. Duke 85, Wake 83 post game thread
    By pfrduke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 310
    Last Post: 01-31-2017, 10:55 AM
  2. FB: Duke 14, Wake 24 Post-Game Thread
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-13-2016, 06:01 AM
  3. MBB: Duke 91, Wake 75 Post-Game Thread
    By pfrduke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 153
    Last Post: 01-08-2016, 06:40 PM
  4. MBB: Duke 83, Wake Forest 63 Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-06-2014, 10:19 PM
  5. MBB: Duke 83, Wake Forest 59 Post-Game Thread
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 01-23-2011, 06:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •