NIU vs. W. Mich scuffle

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tnolan

lol. was thinking the same!



but do you think a backcourt violation shoulda been called?
if you get the 1st, you avoid the 2nd. doesn't excuse the actions tho.

Only because one followed the other. Not because of the magic of preventive officiating.

Haven't really watched the first half of the play that closely. If there's doubt, they're going to let it play out -- after all, the ball went the other way.

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Rich

Only because one followed the other. Not because of the magic of preventive officiating.

Haven't really watched the first half that closely. If there's doubt, they're going to let it play out -- after all, the ball went the other way.

yeah, i'm not saying they call the violation to prevent it. i'm saying they call the violation because it's a violation.
BUT, i agree...it's super close and did end up going for white. honestly, i miss this call too.

[ReffingAce]

Travel before the dunk attempt... not that that would have saved the hard foul from behind... haha! Agree that we could have had an over and back prior to the mugging. Rough way to start the 1st 5min. I wonder what the Monmouth bench would have been choreographing at this point?

[bballref3966]

"Double flagrant" on NIU #5?

There is no such thing as a "double flagrant" on a single player.

And I echo what others have said, what the heck is the L doing?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

"Double flagrant" on NIU #5?

There is no such thing as a "double flagrant" on a single player.

And I echo what others have said, what the heck is the L doing?

It is an NCAA game. He means that an FF2 was assessed.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is an NCAA game. He means that an FF2 was assessed.

What does it being an NCAA game have to do with it? A "double flagrant" is not what caused the player to be ejected. That was my point.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

What does it being an NCAA game have to do with it? A "double flagrant" is not what caused the player to be ejected. That was my point.

Perhaps the poster was attempting to differentiate between FF1 and FF2, but didn't know the proper terminology.

On the other hand it is possible that the player was charged with both a personal flagrant foul 2 for the contact foul during play and then also with a flagrant technical for something during the skirmish that followed. So it is possible that he received two flagrant fouls. I still wouldn't use the word "double" as that means fouls by opponents, but again he probably doesn't know the proper diction.

[JRutledge]

Peace