|
|||
And the third guy....
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If you ain't first, you're LAST!!! |
|
|||
To those who think my previous comment was a BS cop-out...Why do you feel that way? My point is this.......I am not at all saying that just because this officiating crew consisted of some of the top officials in the country, that they are above the law to be disciplined. No one is in this business.
I was saying unless we were right there to hear them talk to each other about what they saw on the replay and then discuss with each other what they were going to do, then I think we cannot stand in judgment of their decision of the way they handled it. I personally think some of my comments from earlier were taken out of context. If they were not explained better, then I am sorry for that. |
|
|||
Quote:
Tough week for him. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
No I am not saying that, I am saying that we do not have the right to judge the officiating crew. And in reading some of these posts, I think that is what is being done.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Also, what else was Cahill involved with this past week? |
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The question then becomes, by necessity, why was the forearm/elbow, which virtually everybody is saying was flagrant, not deemed as such? Guys like Greene, Shows, and Cahill normally don't have one single problem making big calls, no matter what the situation. The question here is why they didn't toss Cousins for what was clearly an ejection-worthy, non-basketball play.
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun. CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check... HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!! |
|
|||
Well then, I guess we just shouldn't discuss plays here at all
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun. CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check... HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!! |
|
|||
Now that I've seen the game (before I opened this thread)....
When I saw the replay, I thought to myself that it "could" be considered flagrant but was perhaps just little enough that they may call it only a T (intentional T). It could have been called flagrant and I wouldn't have disagreed with it at all but I can also see how they felt it fell just a bit short of flagrent. As for what was called that made it a dead ball....a held ball.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
As a result of this play, KY #15 shot 2 FTs and KY got the ball out of bounds on the baseline.
A total of 3 Ts were given out on this play. Whistle was blown for the jumpball and the ball is dead. After seeing his teammate get elbowed, Louisville #12 gets the first T (issued by Greene) for pulling KY #15 off the pile. Louisville #21 (the player involved with the jumpball and victim of elbow) got the 2nd T (issued by Shows) for shoving KY #15. Only after the crew looks at the replay do they issue a T to KY #15. 1) My questions are why only 2 FTs were issued? Did the crew determine after the replay that KY #15 and L'ville #21 was a double T? 2) The T by L'ville #12 occurred after a dead ball which involved contact in a non-flagrant manner. Should play resume at the division line for KY on the throw-in? |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kick Catch Interference in Kentucky/Louisville Game | Fan10 | Football | 2 | Mon Sep 01, 2008 06:49am |
Louisville/WVU | rainmaker | Basketball | 11 | Sun Mar 27, 2005 06:01am |
Memphis-Louisville ending | TriggerMN | Basketball | 7 | Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:49pm |
Cinn-Louisville.... | DrakeM | Basketball | 11 | Fri Feb 07, 2003 11:11am |
The Louisville "No travelling" game | ChuckElias | Basketball | 11 | Mon Mar 25, 2002 04:49pm |