Kentucky/Louisville

[WhistlesAndStripes]

A Forearm to the head against a guy flat on the floor, you have the monotor to check the replay, and you don't eject? Are you kidding me?

Someone please explain it. And don't give me the "it's a rivalry" crap.

[Mark Padgett]

Just for clarification (no joke here), are you asking if NCAA officials can use replay to determine if a foul was flagrant or not, or are you claiming the foul was flagrant and they just missed it - or both? Thanks.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Just for clarification (no joke here), are you asking if NCAA officials can use replay to determine if a foul was flagrant or not, or are you claiming the foul was flagrant and they just missed it - or both? Thanks.

When I saw who the first reply was, I thought, Oh Great, here goes the sarcastic responses.

As far as your question, I'm asking about both really. There was a scrum on the floor for the ball, 45 seconds into the game. Cousins from Kentucky throws a pretty good forearm to the head of the louisville player he was fighting for the ball with. Guy on the floor came up mad and got a quick T, as did one of his teammates I believe who came in angry to help break it up. Officials went and looked at the monitor and then assessed an unsportsmanlike T on Cousins, which must have been for the forearm to the head. I guess I'm asking if they could come up with the T from the reviewing the video, why couldn't they come up with the flagrant?

[johnSandlin]

I thought it was the right route to go after looking at the monitor.

[just another ref]

NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Rules Committees Announce Rules Changes, Including a Focus on Sportsmanship - NCAA.org

[howie719]

Originally Posted by johnSandlin

I thought it was the right route to go after looking at the monitor.

I bet you would have a different feeling if you were the one who took the shot to the head. If they make that call without the monitor I get it. But you go to the monitor and see that forearm to head of a player and don't toss him? They didn't have the balls to pull the trigger in the blue grass state. Sad from veteran NCAA tournamnet crew.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by howie719

I bet you would have a different feeling if you were the one who took the shot to the head. If they make that call without the monitor I get it. But you go to the monitor and see that forearm to head of a player and don't toss him? They didn't have the balls to pull the trigger in the blue grass state. Sad from veteran NCAA tournamnet crew.

Very well stated. That's what was the most shocking to me. They called NOTHING on cousins prior to going to the monitor. And then, when they did, the call didn't seem to be justified by the action. It was live ball action and how it wasn't flagrant is beyond me!!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

As far as your question, I'm asking about both really. There was a scrum on the floor for the ball, 45 seconds into the game. Cousins from Kentucky throws a pretty good forearm to the head of the louisville player he was fighting for the ball with. Guy on the floor came up mad and got a quick T, as did one of his teammates I believe who came in angry to help break it up. Officials went and looked at the monitor and then assessed an unsportsmanlike T on Cousins, which must have been for the forearm to the head. I guess I'm asking if they could come up with the T from the reviewing the video, why couldn't they come up with the flagrant?

I'm a little confused -- it appears the foul on Cousins was a live-ball foul, so it couldn't (or shouldn't) have been a T.

They are allowed to use the monitor to determine if the contact was flagrant. I didn't (obviously) see the play, so I have no opinion on the specific call.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm a little confused -- it appears the foul on Cousins was a live-ball foul, so it couldn't (or shouldn't) have been a T.

They are allowed to use the monitor to determine if the contact was flagrant. I didn't (obviously) see the play, so I have no opinion on the specific call.

There may have been a held ball called immediately preceding the contact...by a hair. That would explain what they come up. Not being privy to their exact call, it's a guess on my part.

Re: the contact...straight judgment call whether the contact was flagrant or not. Imo it was( after several replays also). In their opinion, it wasn't. They win. At least something did get called, even though it was retroactively.

Just your average ol' football forearm shiver...but to the head....and it sure looked deliberate to me.

[icallfouls]

More than likely we will see this play again during the course of the year when John Adams sends out his video breakdown of plays.

It seemed pretty deliberate to me, and to have the ability to use the monitor as many times as needed to make the determination.

I suspect there might be some consequences to be faced by the crew on this game.