2024-2025 Men’s Basketball Season General Discussion

Arkansas gets its 2nd SEC win by defeating UK 89-79, and Calipari gets his revenge. Reading Rupp’s Rafters should be about as much fun as IC tonight.
Watched this on replay this morning. I detest Cal from his UMass days. He and UK were a match made in hell. UK is my #21-most hated team (#1-20 are that team in Chapel Hill, of course). So rooting against UK was rooting against Cal, and vice versa - perfectly fine. But this game, I found myself rooting for Arkansas, which meant rooting for Cal... which was surprisingly fine. Thus proves the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I should have known since I root hard for UK when they play UNC.

9F
 
Houston lost at home to Texas Tech, which is a good team, BUT Tech lost its top scorer and its coach in the first half, over a very bad flagrant foul call. Tech's reserve players include former ACC players Federiko Federiko (Pitt) and Kerwin Walton (UNCheat).
That flagrant 2 call was EGREGIOUS. It wasn't even a common foul. And to double-down and toss the coach too? My goodness those officials need a hiatus.
 
That flagrant 2 call was EGREGIOUS. It wasn't even a common foul. And to double-down and toss the coach too? My goodness those officials need a hiatus.
Well, that's maybe a touch hyperbolic. It wasn't called a common foul, but only because the ref wasn't looking at it. But it certainly was one. It's not a flagrant 2, agreed. But I think a flagrant 1 is a defensible call. He shouldn't be sticking his leg out there, and it's not clearly wrong to call that excessive. But flagrant 2 implies the contact was "not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing)". I don't see how that possibly rises to that level.
 
Houston lost at home to Texas Tech, which is a good team, BUT Tech lost its top scorer and its coach in the first half, over a very bad flagrant foul call. Tech's reserve players include former ACC players Federiko Federiko (Pitt) and Kerwin Walton (UNCheat).
I think the score was 8-8 or something similar it was so early. Terrible call.
 
I have to admit I've been enjoying trolling UNC and Kentucky fans on the cess pool social media owned by that terrible guy. They think saying that Cooper is not as good as advertised or Arkansas is not a good team is somehow a positive for their own loss. One thing our coaches do is they always praise the other team when they lose because otherwise you're just saying you lost to a bad team or a player. Must be that quality education they receive at these institutions.
 
Well, that's maybe a touch hyperbolic. It wasn't called a common foul, but only because the ref wasn't looking at it. But it certainly was one. It's not a flagrant 2, agreed. But I think a flagrant 1 is a defensible call. He shouldn't be sticking his leg out there, and it's not clearly wrong to call that excessive. But flagrant 2 implies the contact was "not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing)". I don't see how that possibly rises to that level.
By rule, it was a flagrant 2. Read the rule in the comments.

 
Do you have a cite to the rule in question? I can’t find the comment you mentioned in the sea of complaints about the call.

The rule book is downloadable for free here, if anyone is interested.

Here's the portion relevant to Toppin's ejection:
"In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:
... d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental"

That shared, it is a ridiculous rule. Toppin was trapped and threw a two-handed crosscourt pass while jumping back from the defenders, who were close enough to get a shin to the nuts. Falling backwards naturally leads to a leg being raised in an effort to gain balance.

How "clearly accidental" does the contact have to be? I'm going to spend the rest of the season terrified about Cooper accidentally kicking someone in the balls while dunking.
 
Here's the relevant rule, in full:

NCAA Basketball Men's Rules Book
Rule 4. Definitions

Section 15. Foul

Art. 2. c. Flagrant personal fouls

2. 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.
Commentators will point to sub d., but I don't think that this particular contact to the groin area was "not clearly accidental", so I don't believe that section of the rule should apply. That section is designed for overt nut punches, like we saw earlier this season with Damian Dunn's fly-by whack of Tyrese in the Pitt game. Nothing about the Texas Tech play suggested to me that the passer intended to whack his opponent where he did.
 
By rule, it was a flagrant 2. Read the rule in the comments.

Disagree—this was an incorrect application of the rule.

Commentators will point to sub d., but I don't think that this particular contact to the groin area was "not clearly accidental", so I don't believe that section of the rule should apply. That section is designed for overt nut punches, like we saw earlier this season with Damian Dunn's fly-by whack of Tyrese in the Pitt game. Nothing about the Texas Tech play suggested to me that the passer intended to whack his opponent where he did.
Agree with this statement. The leg motion was a caused by the momentum created by the player jumping backwards away from the double-teaming defenders while simultaneously attempting to toss a cross-court pass. It was therefore clearly accidental, so by rule this should have been called simply a common foul. This was a very poor call by the officials.
 
Somewhere in Charlotte, 2027 recruit Zeke Battier watched the Texas Tech-Houston game, and is now learning how to maneuver under a jumping opponent just to take this very special kind of charge.

Fast forward a few years...

Zeke Battier (on the floor in pain): "Gahhh!"

Dan Shulman: "Junior Zeke Battier just took a hit to the nether regions. Looks accidental, but that's gonna be a flagrant 2 on freshman King Bacot."

Zeke Battier (taking controlled breaths): "Ohhh."

Jay Bilas: "Toughness!"
 
KenPom, channeling his inner Dylan, on the increasing length of games:


"The single easiest fix to fight the increase in game length is to adopt the NBA system where out of bounds reviews can only be initiated by a coach’s challenge. Currently, coaches and players effectively have unlimited challenges. Any of them can twirl their finger in the last two minutes and officials are obligated to go to the monitor. Even the most obvious calls can trigger a lengthy viewing party for the officials.

Unfortunately, there’s a custom among the college hoops’ vanguard that adopting an idea from the NBA is a sign of weakness. Therefore, we must wait years (three-point line, charge circle) or decades (shot clock) or possibly generations (quarters) to implement useful ideas. Not all NBA innovations are great but a coach’s challenge system for out of bounds calls would make the end-game quite a bit more watchable. If you think a call is obviously wrong, then risk a timeout to challenge it. Otherwise, keep playing."
 
Commentators will point to sub d., but I don't think that this particular contact to the groin area was "not clearly accidental", so I don't believe that section of the rule should apply. That section is designed for overt nut punches, like we saw earlier this season with Damian Dunn's fly-by whack of Tyrese in the Pitt game.
The rule, it is plain to me, is meant to apply to much more than "overt nut punches" because it applies to any play that is "not clearly accidental." That means the drafters intended it to apply to situations where the contact is possibly or even probably accidental, as long as it falls short of "clearly".

That said, it seems like a dumb rule, and there's a strong case that this play was "clearly" accidental anyway.
 
The rule, it is plain to me, is meant to apply to much more than "overt nut punches" because it applies to any play that is "not clearly accidental." That means the drafters intended it to apply to situations where the contact is possibly or even probably accidental, as long as it falls short of "clearly".

That said, it seems like a dumb rule, and there's a strong case that this play was "clearly" accidental anyway.
Why isn't this rule known as the Chris Paul rule? (Because such a rule would require that Daniel Ewing get a technical.)
 
The rule, it is plain to me, is meant to apply to much more than "overt nut punches" because it applies to any play that is "not clearly accidental." That means the drafters intended it to apply to situations where the contact is possibly or even probably accidental, as long as it falls short of "clearly".

That said, it seems like a dumb rule, and there's a strong case that this play was "clearly" accidental anyway.
I'm speculating, but I think it was mostly written that way as a notification to refs that they shouldn't let a player slide on it because they weren't 100% sure that the nut-punching player meant to do it. In short, it's a direction that basically says, "If it's close, call it, even though it leads it an ejection. We want to stop this." But as often happens when you're writing to send a message, they made it overly inclusive, and the phrasing is essentially "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "if you're not sure, call it".

In short, I agree that, as written, it's a dumb rule. And I further agree that, even as written, I don't think this incident should be captured by it. To me, it was clearly accidental. But it's a judgment call, so there's no recourse (except for the coach to get himself thrown out in protest, which he did).
 
Back
Top