Can someone explain to me why this stuff is allowed in basketball
This bothered me a lot in the game regardless if it was some team doing it to us or vice versa
In the video linked below @ :19 seconds you see a player run into Irvins leg while he is in the air which causes him to fall a little akwardly. Not that big of a deal but...
later
@1:28 a player goes underneath Irvin while he is in the air making him fall quite hard on his arm. You can later see him rubbing his arm that he fell on.
I think there are more examples of this but why is this allowed?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Wisconsin does this frequently to shooters, and it's one of the reasons they deserved to have the refs favor Duke on Monday. May they be smited and made into pillars of salt.
Yep, the Badgers get no sympathy from Wolverine fans, or fans of any other B1G school for that matter, for the reffing on Monday. What goes around comes around.
Those are very dirty and dangerous plays fouls that weren't called in that highlight video. They weren't hard to miss either -- it's astoundingly bad reffing.
Penalty for the newly created flagrant three?
wisky does do this a lot. there were at least 3 instances in the BIG tourny game against us where they undercut our players and no call. worse yet, they got the ball and scored in at least 2 of those.
i for one am glad gasser is finally gone - the main culprit.
Blame the Bad Boys. They started it.
The Bad Boys didn't "start" anything... they just perfected stuff!
ok well at least others notice it. It is sad that there are so many times that we wait until something bad happens instead of being pro active
I would say that refs go out of their way to protect shooters (at times). The Chauncey Leg Kick has become the preferred method these days for drawing an "and one" on a jumpshot and to me is the equivalent of flopping.
Just watched the highlight and yes both those look like very dirty plays. There is a lot of deception because it is subtle.
I assume that is why the refs missed the call because they were so subtle.
I guess that is why they allow you to hang on the rim in certain circumstances, because you are supposed to let someone land - but you run the risk of a technical if the ref thinks you are showboating.
Both were purposely done and on review could be called flagrant 1s and possible flagrant 2 fouls.
It is annoying cause with that much force it is quite possible to dislocate a bone or even break something not to mention a concussion.
The first one looked like it was just a guy who could slow down or avoid him.
That second one was 100% intention, no one was even close to Irvin when he caught the ball. That should've been a Flagrant, I'm not joking.
T the kid up. Especially if you're going to T the player up for hanging on the rim when he's protecting himself.
That 2nd one was awful.
To make matters worse, the ref was looking right at it and had the a clear view of what happened.
refs seem to call that foul after the shot when a shooter is beyond the 3 pt arc, yet they often let that go under the basket which is far more dangerous.
I'd even argue that they call call that foul far too often after the three point shot.
That kid could easily avoid Irvin and ran around him, they were the only 2 guys even in the play. It's not like there first one where there was some traffic.
That should've been sent to the conference office, I hope it was.
I sound like this is Morris 2.0 and I'm making a big deal out of it, but Irvin could've been SERIOUSLY injured by a kid undercutting him.
Especially because he was all alone, if you dunk in traffic you know to hang a little longer and wait for things to clear below your feet. You dunk alone and you're not thinking about some orange fucker taking out your legs.
Is the word they use, I believe.
Undercuts only get called when Blake Griffin jumps onto someone's back.
but like other fouls, it doesn't always get called. The first one was incidental, and actually Irvin kind of went scissors with his legs to initiate contact. The second one was absolutely a foul and probably gets called more often than not.
Full disclosure: I didn't watch the NCAA championship game because I didn't care.
Having said that - if it'd been (almost) any other team that apparently got jobbed by the refs against Duke in the finals, I'd be suitably apoplectic on their behalf as befits a decent human being.
Seeing as how it was Wisconsin who never met a jump shooter they didn't undercut without getting called out on it by the refs and has pretty much built their brand on playing bush league dirty thug ball that would make John Stockton blush - I'm all out of fucks to give.
Look, we all hate Duke. Hell, my brother went to Duke and not even that deters me from my patriotic duty. But here's the deal, kids:
I postulate that there is a measureable index that charts your unhappiness when a team you hate wins a championship in something. Let's call it C, for 'cheaterz'. Given C, there is a variable quantity called Cx, where x is the number of championships that hated team has won. In this case, my theory is that the delta of C1 and C0 (Wisconsin) would've been immeasureably higher than the delta of C5 and C4 (Duke)
Given this, Duke winning was the last awful option to me.
Isn't this why they invented the blocking rule way back when? I thought I heard it was because guys were going up for layups and getting undercut. That's why you never saw people dunk prior to the 70's or whatever because it was too dangerous to attempt.
Disclaimer: Just trying to provide facts, not defending any offials in particular. I used to ref at a low college level (club, NAIA), now I stick to coaching because the travel is not as bad and it's more fun.
One thing people don't realize about basketball officiating: there's kinda advantage/disadvantage.
A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements.
Emphasis mine. Now, there are directives every year: Focus on this, focus on that. There are what we call "automatics," that are fouls whether or not they actuall effect the play (prime example: two hands on the ball handler). However, it is encouraged at every level to let contact go that does not effect the result of the play. I remember getting evaluated and the #1 thing the trainers would mark you down for was weak and-1 calls. So, while there isn't true soccer "advantage," contact is supposed to put the offended player at some disadvantage to be called. Especially the lower the level of play.
THAT SAID: I would say the first one is now a foul, though I wouldn't be upset with a foul being called out of safety concern. The second one should be called because of an airborne shooter has the right to land unimpeded and, while the contact didn't prevent the basket, it did prevent "normal offensive movement", i.e. landing safely.
Also, for those interested, here's a high school rule book. It's tough to find these online because they are actual publications and the NFHS sells them. However, I think the NCAA rulebook is online and easily found.
http://www.juneau.org/parkrec/adult/documents/2011-12nfhsrulesbook.pdf