Yeah, I don’t remember Duke fans wishing our coach would be more like Calipari, Connecticut Hurley, et al. i guess I was too distracted with my wife, family and neighbors.Not really, no.

Priorities, right?
Yeah, I don’t remember Duke fans wishing our coach would be more like Calipari, Connecticut Hurley, et al. i guess I was too distracted with my wife, family and neighbors.Not really, no.
He’s been in concussion protocol twice this season. He’s having a rough go of it, unfortunately.Yes he’s missed I think the last 4 games with a concussion. That sounds serious.
I’m really sorry to hear this. I am glad he’s getting maximum bucks this year, but I’m not sure that things have worked out in his best interest basketball wise.He’s been in concussion protocol twice this season. He’s having a rough go of it, unfortunately.
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.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.
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.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).
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.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.
I think the score was 8-8 or something similar it was so early. Terrible call.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).
By rule, it was a flagrant 2. Read the rule in the comments.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Disagree—this was an incorrect application of the rule.By rule, it was a flagrant 2. Read the rule in the comments.
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.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.
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".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.
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.
Fantastic sequence. I'm not a Kansas fan but I do like KJ Adams as a player. Not a star by any means, but a tough defender and reasonably skilled but unselfish player who seems to be all about winning. A classic glue guy in other words.Had this on last night... and this play caused me to jump out of my seat.
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".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.