Why is the media acting like that foul was a big deal?

[checkraiser88]

We were going to win either way..,

[Wild Bill Hog]

Was wondering the same thing.  Guess they like to manufacture drama.

[Cornfed Pig]

lol. We were up 1, and SH could've had last possession with, at worst, a shot to tie and send it to OT. Possibly they would've had a shot to hold and win the game.  And the call was nonsense. 

No big deal

[Arazorbackguy1]

lol. We were up 1, and SH could've had last possession with, at worst, a shot to tie and send it to OT. Possibly they would've had a shot to hold and win the game.  And the call was nonsense. 

No big deal

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.  They didn't hit any shots with what time they had left anyway.

[WorfHog]

New York media needs something to talk about. The foul wasn't crucial Seton Hall was already losing and in desperation mode.

[Cornfed Pig]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.  They didn't hit any shots with what time they had left anyway.

When a team is up 1 with less than 30 seconds to play, the refs should blow the whistle, and signal that the game is over.

[Cornfed Pig]

New York media needs something to talk about. The foul wasn't crucial Seton Hall was already losing and in desperation mode.

"New York media"

What other "media" is there -- what is the Idaho media reporting about this one? 

Of course the flagrant 1 was crucial. It gave us two shots and the ball back, which gave us an opportunity to seal the game.  Without the flagrant, Seton Hall would've had a chance to tie, or possibly win. 

Don't go full ree ree people.

[hogpc]

It was a critical call imo. Barford gets 2 shots and we get the ball, otherwise he's at the line for a one-an-one. That is a huge difference.  However, I think it was the right call since the defender did not go for the ball, or even make a pretense of going for the ball - he just shoved Barford in the shoulder/arm with both hands.

[Cinco de Hogo]

When a team is up 1 with less than 30 seconds to play, the refs should blow the whistle, and signal that the game is over.

It was a foul either way and Barford hit both free throws.  Hall had a shot and missed it, what the heck do you think was gonna happen? 

[Dr. Starcs]

Probably because the tourney has sucked so far in terms of drama and big upsets.

[Wild Bill Hog]

lol. We were up 1, and SH could've had last possession with, at worst, a shot to tie and send it to OT. Possibly they would've had a shot to hold and win the game.  And the call was nonsense. 

No big deal

LOL  The call was correct.  Besides we were hitting FT's, and SH was not scoring.  The only prayer SH had was for us to be called for walking and for them to get the ball and hit a miracle shot.  We had the game wrapped up.

No big deal.

[Cinco de Hogo]

"New York media"

What other "media" is there -- what is the Idaho media reporting about this one? 

Of course the flagrant 1 was crucial. It gave us two shots and the ball back, which gave us an opportunity to seal the game.  Without the flagrant, Seton Hall would've had a chance to tie, or possibly win. 

Don't go full ree ree people.

Don't go full tee ree(whatever that is) Hall had a shot and missed it.  They had bunches of shots and missed them.  They had lots of freethrows and missed them.  In the end though they turned the ball over at the wrong time.

[Cornfed Pig]

It was a foul either way and Barford hit both free throws.  Hall had a shot and missed it, what the heck do you think was gonna happen?

Barford hit both knowing he had two free. And you missed the part where we got the ball back, too.

"What the heck do you think was gonna happen" -- I guess ole Warren Buffett just cuts you a check Monday night before the play-in games.

[Cornfed Pig]

Don't go full tee ree(whatever that is) Hall had a shot and missed it.  They had bunches of shots and missed them.  They had lots of freethrows and missed them.  In the end though they turned the ball over at the wrong time.

"they turned the ball over at the wrong time"

You do understand that this possession is irrelevant to whether the ref made the right call, and whether the media should be "acting like that foul was a big deal."  I mean, you are capable of separating these two events, right?

[Arazorbackguy1]

Don't go full tee ree(whatever that is) Hall had a shot and missed it.  They had bunches of shots and missed them.  They had lots of freethrows and missed them.  In the end though they turned the ball over at the wrong time.

Mic drop

[bigred223]

Pushed down from behind, no play on the ball. Flagrant 1, end of story

[Cornfed Pig]

LOL  The call was correct.  Besides we were hitting FT's, and SH was not scoring.  The only prayer SH had was for us to be called for walking and for them to get the ball and hit a miracle shot.  We had the game wrapped up.

No big deal.

1. Ree ree
2. We didn't have "the game wrapped up." We were going to the line for 1-and-1, up by a point.
3. Even if we hit both, SH can tie with a 3.  But "SH was not scoring."  Meaning, they would miss their next shot?
4. I agree the call was technically correct (and thus actually correct), but the question was: why is the media making a big deal out of it? The answer is: because if it wasn't called a flagrant 1, no one would've batted an eye, and it could have made a difference in the outcome.
5. And also, like someone said, by march madness standards, slow opening.

[PossumFan]

I don't know, but I really hate some of the ridiculously inaccurate things that are being said, including:

_ These types fouls occur near the end of almost every game and aren't called flagrant. Not true! You see lots of obviously intentional fouls, but not someone being shoved from behind like that. The rule is clear.

_ Franseca says our guy "took a dive." No, he clearly tripped over the defender's foot. He didn't flop or try to "sell it."

_ Some are saying an accidental trip isn't a flagrant foul. Again, it's not about the trip ... it's about the shove.

_ Others are insinuating that the call cost Seton Hall the game. Clearly it didn't. Hogs only got one extra point by virtue of the flagrant call.

[Cinco de Hogo]

"they turned the ball over at the wrong time"

You do understand that this possession is irrelevant to whether the ref made the right call, and whether the media should be "acting like that foul was a big deal."  I mean, you are capable of separating these two events, right?

Nothing that happens in a game is irrelevant.  First, the call was technically right so any opinion you have about what happened is irrelevant.  Second, did I do a good job of separating those two facts?

[hogwood]

lol. We were up 1, and SH could've had last possession with, at worst, a shot to tie and send it to OT. Possibly they would've had a shot to hold and win the game.  And the call was nonsense. 

No big deal

Even if it wasn't a flagrant it would've been an intentional foul. They had to foul us. We would've gone to the line and sealed the deal. I don't see the big deal.

[Cinco de Hogo]

1. Ree ree
2. We didn't have "the game wrapped up." We were going to the line for 1-and-1, up by a point.
3. Even if we hit both, SH can tie with a 3.  But "SH was not scoring."  Meaning, they would miss their next shot?
4. I agree the call was technically correct (and thus actually correct), but the question was: why is the media making a big deal out of it? The answer is: because if it wasn't called a flagrant 1, no one would've batted an eye, and it could have made a difference in the outcome.
5. And also, like someone said, by march madness standards, slow opening.

3. They DID actually miss their next shot.

[jesterzzn]

It was a big deal.

It was technically the correct call.  The rule specifically lists two hands on the back without a play on the ball.

I didn't like the call.  But my issue would have to be with the rule, and not the refs.

If anyone in the media is complaining about it being changed to an F1, they are wrong.

The more significant event was the no call on Macon's shuffle.  I have not seen a replay, but live, I thought he walked.

[hogsanity]

From a macro standpoint it sets the precedent for more f1's to be called when teams are trying to foul to stop the clock. In the Wichita st game a dayton player just wrapped up a shocker not playin the ball just a bear hug. Should have been a f1. So if they start calling more of those it means fewer dramatic finishes.

[Cornfed Pig]

Nothing that happens in a game is irrelevant.  First, the call was technically right so any opinion you have about what happened is irrelevant.  Second, did I do a good job of separating those two facts?

Jesus H, you're solely responsible for like half of my car insurance premiums.

I agree the call was technically correct.  But this idea that it wasn't a big deal is ludicrous.  These types of fouls happen all the time at the end of games.  Guys constantly foul the other team intentionally, without making a play on the ball.  That is a flagrant 1.  But how often is that flagrant 1 called? 

[Locutus_of_Boar]

We were going to win either way..,

Self interest.  I'm guessing 90% of America had Seton Hall in their bracket.

[Willyboy]

It was a big deal.

The more significant event was the no call on Macon's shuffle.  I have not seen a replay, but live, I thought he walked.

He for sure walked, I saw a replay.  We got really lucky.

[PonderinHog]

Even if it wasn't a flagrant it would've been an intentional foul. They had to foul us. We would've gone to the line and sealed the deal. I don't see the big deal.

There is no longer such a thing as an intentional foul.  The flagrant 1 and 2 replaced the intentional foul.

[Cornfed Pig]

3. They DID actually miss their next shot.

RR, what was our lead when SH took the "next shot?" Up 1? Up 2? Up 3? Up more than 3?  Outcomes are different when you change the variables.  But that's like, something you learn by reading books and thangs.

[jesterzzn]

From a macro standpoint it sets the precedent for more f1's to be called when teams are trying to foul to stop the clock. In the Wichita st game a dayton player just wrapped up a shocker not playin the ball just a bear hug. Should have been a f1. So if they start calling more of those it means fewer dramatic finishes.

That wouldn't have been a flagrant.  It could have been called intentional, but wasn't, and that's the difference.  Intentional is more of a judgement call on the refs part.  F1 has some specific criteria.

If the SH player had grabbed Barford's arm instead of shoving him, its a 99.9% chance its a normal foul.

[HogBreath]

From a macro standpoint it sets the precedent for more f1's to be called when teams are trying to foul to stop the clock. In the Wichita st game a dayton player just wrapped up a shocker not playin the ball just a bear hug. Should have been a f1. So if they start calling more of those it means fewer dramatic finishes.

Exactly right..sure there have been times when a flagrant should have been called but wasn't.  They got it right today though.  And we for damn sure had a break coming regardless.

[WorfHog]

"New York media"

What other "media" is there -- what is the Idaho media reporting about this one? 

Of course the flagrant 1 was crucial. It gave us two shots and the ball back, which gave us an opportunity to seal the game.  Without the flagrant, Seton Hall would've had a chance to tie, or possibly win. 

Don't go full ree ree people.

There all kinds of media, mainstream, local, alternative, social...

We were winning before the foul. Barford made his shots and likely would have had the foul not been fragrant becasue he shoots 75% of his free throws. On Seton Hall's next position they jacked up garbage (which they did all game) and Macon got the rebound. 

They lost because they cannot hit their own free throws or many other shots. And US, what do you mean by US..you're just a ** troll who's mad that Mike won.

The head of officials said it was a flagrant, what is there to argue about? Bunch of CMA haters up in here tonight ripping legit fans mods need to roll out hard. At no time in history is it more clear which accounts need to be suspended.

[bigred223]

Self interest.  I'm guessing 90% of America had Seton Hall in their bracket.

Did they?

[Cinco de Hogo]

It was a big deal.

It was technically the correct call.  The rule specifically lists two hands on the back without a play on the ball.

I didn't like the call.  But my issue would have to be with the rule, and not the refs.

If anyone in the media is complaining about it being changed to an F1, they are wrong.

The more significant event was the no call on Macon's shuffle.  I have not seen a replay, but live, I thought he walked.

I guess what some of us have trouble understanding is why would our own fans be critical of the call or any other call when you could also point out that SH got away with probably ten fouls on our shooters on drives to the basket?  Calls go both ways during a game and SH got plenty of calls or no calls in their favor.  If this one situation wasn't technically right I still don't know if it would out weight all the times we could have been at the line shooting free throws.  The fact that it was the right call makes the argument kinda silly.

[Cornfed Pig]

There all kinds of media, mainstream, local, alternative, social...

We were winning before the foul. Barford made his shots and likely would have had the foul not been fragrant becasue he shoots 75% of his free throws. On Seton Hall's next position they jacked up garbage (which they did all game) and Macon got the rebound. 

They lost because they cannot hit their own free throws or many other shots. And US, what do you mean by US..you're just a ** troll who's mad that Mike won.

The head of officials said it was a flagrant, what is there to argue about? Bunch of CMA haters up in here tonight ripping legit fans mods need to roll out hard. At no time in history is it more clear which accounts need to be suspended.

Not sure where you got "US."

Check post history, never hated on MA, actually an MA fan and supporter.

"There's all kinds of media" - I was poking fun of the fact that somebody thinks NY is out to get us. 

Look, the media wants something interesting to post to get attention.  The foul call was news-worthy, that's my point.  I called it "nonsense" originally, solely on the basis that most of the time, that foul is not called. The fact that it's called in the opening round of March Madness, when everything on the line, when there are a lot of eyeballs on the game, and the media "blowup" shouldn't surprise anyone.

[jesterzzn]

I guess what some of us have trouble understanding is why would our own fans be critical of the call or any other call when you could also point out that SH got away with probably ten fouls on our shooters on drives to the basket?  Calls go both ways during a game and SH got plenty of calls or no calls in their favor.  If this one situation wasn't technically right I still don't know if it would out weight all the times we could have been at the line shooting free throws.  The fact that it was the right call makes the argument kinda silly.

Well, when I said I don't like the call, I was just speaking in general about the way flagrant fouls are called today.  I was so jacked up at that moment that I didn't give a crap if the ref had ejected their entire teams and gave us the game in a forfeit.  I don't give a rats ass how we win.

But now, several hours and several trips to the boys room later, I can rationally (soberly) recognize that I don't like that rule.  I think the ref should have the discretion to make the call on the floor and not be overruled by "technicality."

[Cinco de Hogo]

Not sure where you got "US."

Check post history, never hated on MA, actually an MA fan and supporter.

"There's all kinds of media" - I was poking fun of the fact that somebody thinks NY is out to get us. 

Look, the media wants something interesting to post to get attention.  The foul call was news-worthy, that's my point.  I called it "nonsense" originally, solely on the basis that most of the time, that foul is not called. The fact that it's called in the opening round of March Madness, when everything on the line, when there are a lot of eyeballs on the game, and the media "blowup" shouldn't surprise anyone.

Ok I get ya, it was a media manufactured critical call.  LOL!

[Cornfed Pig]

I guess what some of us have trouble understanding is why would our own fans be critical of the call or any other call when you could also point out that SH got away with probably ten fouls on our shooters on drives to the basket?  Calls go both ways during a game and SH got plenty of calls or no calls in their favor.  If this one situation wasn't technically right I still don't know if it would out weight all the times we could have been at the line shooting free throws.  The fact that it was the right call makes the argument kinda silly.

Not critical of the call, critical of the ignorance of its significance.  I take your point that people shouldn't be up in arms about a correct call, but these foul rules have changed recently, and we're now seeing the impact on the late-game strategy in a close game.

Basically, we know what's going to happen next -- a similar foul, in a similar situation, but no flagrant 1 is called.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Well, when I said I don't like the call, I was just speaking in general about the way flagrant fouls are called today.  I was so jacked up at that moment that I didn't give a crap if the ref had ejected their entire teams and gave us the game in a forfeit.  I don't give a rats ass how we win.

But now, several hours and several trips to the boys room later, I can rationally (soberly) recognize that I don't like that rule.  I think the ref should have the discretion to make the call on the floor and not be overruled by "technicality."

I think you know why the rules exist and it has been explained several times on here and on the air but the head official how refs operate under those circumstances.  They call the fouls knowing they can look at the monitor to make sure what exactly to call.  They almost never call a flagrant on the floor even if they know it will be.  They don't eject players without looking at the monitors. 

[PonderinHog]

Just make a play and on the damn ball and make contact!  It ain't rocket surgery.

[Cornfed Pig]

Ok I get ya, it was a media manufactured critical call.  LOL!

It was a critical call. The media, "New York" or otherwise, is justified in making a "big deal" out of it. 

[Cinco de Hogo]

Not critical of the call, critical of the ignorance of its significance.  I take your point that people shouldn't be up in arms about a correct call, but these foul rules have changed recently, and we're now seeing the impact on the late-game strategy in a close game.

Basically, we know what's going to happen next -- a similar foul, in a similar situation, but no flagrant 1 is called.

No two games are called alike that is for sure.  Heck look at Hogsanity's post, normally he's all about taking up fir the refs because he is one.  But this time because the Hogs benefited he thinks it's the wrong call...and he's a ___________ref!

[jesterzzn]

I think you know why the rules exist and it has been explained several times on here and on the air but the head official how refs operate under those circumstances.  They call the fouls knowing they can look at the monitor to make sure what exactly to call.  They almost never call a flagrant on the floor even if they know it will be.  They don't eject players without looking at the monitors. 

They don't eject players for an F1 anyway.  And I would think this goes without saying, but I guess not...

I don't care about any of that crap.  I personally do not like the way they do it.  I prefer the old way.  I say bring back the intentional foul.

[Cracker Jack]

Here's the deal, guys.  If Barford does not trip and fall, they would NOT have reviewed the video.  In my opionion, the slight shove, even with two hands, would not have been called an F1.  But when they went to the tape and saw the two-handed shove in the back and no attempt at the ball, they had no choice but to call the F1 foul.  A slight shove at the end of the game is seldom, if ever, called an F1 (formerly an intentional foul).

[The Boar War]

Was wondering the same thing.  Guess they like to manufacture drama.

There's little else going on in this tournament (as far as shock value/ attractive story lines go).  It's been good basketball but its not living up the name of "Madness".

[PonderinHog]

Barford didn't trip.  He was tripped.

[Biggus Piggus]

Barford. Was. Tripped. FFS.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Oh man, this is really starting to hurt my head.  The number of people that don't understand this is really starting to become painful.  There's no longer any such thing as an intentional foul and Barford was tripped by the Seton Hall player (intentional or not, he certainly wasn't embellishing anything, and he wasn't at fault for tripping or going down--the Seton Hall player was responsible--and intent is IRRELEVANT).

[Cinco de Hogo]

They don't eject players for an F1 anyway.  And I would think this goes without saying, but I guess not...

I don't care about any of that crap.  I personally do not like the way they do it.  I prefer the old way.  I say bring back the intentional foul.

My point was that they don't go to the monitor with with an ironclad opinion they are going to call it a certain way most of the time.  The choice to call it F1 or F2 and an ejection as was the case with Kingsley is made at the monitor.

[Potosihog]

I don't know, but I really hate some of the ridiculously inaccurate things that are being said, including:

_ These types fouls occur near the end of almost every game and aren't called flagrant. Not true! You see lots of obviously intentional fouls, but not someone being shoved from behind like that. The rule is clear.

_ Franseca says our guy "took a dive." No, he clearly tripped over the defender's foot. He didn't flop or try to "sell it."

_ Some are saying an accidental trip isn't a flagrant foul. Again, it's not about the trip ... it's about the shove.

_ Others are insinuating that the call cost Seton Hall the game. Clearly it didn't. Hogs only got one extra point by virtue of the flagrant call.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Oh and it wasn't a "slight shove" either!