Neil Everet bashing HOG win

[Hollywood870]

Wisconsin player grabbed a nova player by the hip near the end of the game. No attempt in the ball. No flagrant called, just like 99 out of 100 times. Glad we were the 1.

You grab at the end of the game it's always just a regular foul. You push a player down from behind in the square of the back it's flagrant. No comparison between the two calls.

[forrest city joe]

Wisconsin player grabbed a nova player by the hip near the end of the game. No attempt in the ball. No flagrant called, just like 99 out of 100 times. Glad we were the 1.

Wrong.Wisconsin player reached out and grabbed the him. he did not take 2 hands and push him in the back.this was the right call.PERIOD. not even close.

[hogfanny]

It's like if one team has "Razorbacks" on their jersey you are incapable of impartial thought.

You are darned right and don't you forget it. Impartial should be the job of the ref, and sports casters. I'm just a HOG fan and for that I do not apologize.

[PORKULATOR]

However they want to act is between them and whoever they call God. But they act like they're entitled and it'd be fun to rub Hog slop all over their smug grimaces.

[The Kig]

Here is the actual rule.  The remainder of the text are just examples to provide texture to clarify the rule.  They even state as much with, "included, but not limited to" which allows for additional interpretation.

"A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act."

As I already stated, I acknowledge that it met some of the criteria outlined in the examples.  As I also stated, glad it went in favor of the Hogs.

A portion of the rule is directly attributable to end of game tactics that used to be common and provided a deterrent to keep teams from extending the game into a free throw contest.
"4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in."

To even get to the examples that did apply, the foul would first have to be "deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary...", which is where I think we caught a break and benefited from a poor call.  Without Barford falling (which was an inadvertent foot clipping a leg), I don't even see the call getting reviewed.  They make the appropriate call of foul and he goes to the line...sinks both and we have the same end.  The problem, especially at the end of the game, is that by itself the foul (which it was just that, a foul) didn't meet the standard for excessive nor unnecessary that would even lead to the examples.

Those arguing that the push was the reason that it was deemed excessive, also don't understand the rule or are intentionally parsing it for their argument.  The specific example in the rule states, "3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;".  There was a player between Barford and the basket, so while there was a push from behind, the score was not a foregone conclusion.

The only example that even approaches the standard is, "2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,".  An argument can be made that there was a legitimate attempt to play the player, but not the ball on that play.   

So...back to my original assertion, it was in fact a bad call because it was neither excessive or unnecessary at the point in the game that it was called. 

<ball served back into the court of those proclaiming I don't know what I am talking about...>

[Science Fiction Greg]

Here is the actual rule.  The remainder of the text are just examples to provide texture to clarify the rule.  They even state as much with, "included, but not limited to" which allows for additional interpretation.

"A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act."

As I already stated, I acknowledge that it met some of the criteria outlined in the examples.  As I also stated, glad it went in favor of the Hogs.

A portion of the rule is directly attributable to end of game tactics that used to be common and provided a deterrent to keep teams from extending the game into a free throw contest.
"4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in."

To even get to the examples that did apply, the foul would first have to be "deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary...", which is where I think we caught a break and benefited from a poor call.  Without Barford falling (which was an inadvertent foot clipping a leg), I don't even see the call getting reviewed.  They make the appropriate call of foul and he goes to the line...sinks both and we have the same end.  The problem, especially at the end of the game, is that by itself the foul (which it was just that, a foul) didn't meet the standard for excessive nor unnecessary that would even lead to the examples.

Those arguing that the push was the reason that it was deemed excessive, also don't understand the rule or are intentionally parsing it for their argument.  The specific example in the rule states, "3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;".  There was a player between Barford and the basket, so while there was a push from behind, the score was not a foregone conclusion.

The only example that even approaches the standard is, "2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,".  An argument can be made that there was a legitimate attempt to play the player, but not the ball on that play.   

So...back to my original assertion, it was in fact a bad call because it was neither excessive or unnecessary at the point in the game that it was called. 

<ball served back into the court of those proclaiming I don't know what I am talking about...>

No.  This is all incorrect because you are ignoring or don't understand the word "or."  The rule is that it is deemed excessive OR unnecessary.  It was CLEARLY unnecessary.  Thus, the entire rest of your post is irrelevant and the examples do apply exactly.  In fact, the examples are just that: examples.  And two, probably three of them describe the situation exactly (your irrelevant contention that a score was not a foregone conclusion notwithstanding since the point is the defender was beaten and the player was driving to the basket -- the fact that there was another player somewhere back there does not change that as the rule doesn't specify anything about that situation).

[Science Fiction Greg]

And, AGAIN, your ignorant interpretation of the rules is irrelevant because it has already been confirmed by actual college basketball officials over and over, including the HEAD OF THE OFFICIALS NATIONWIDE.

You are wrong, it is not debatable, and you look stupid continuing to argue it.

[The Kig]

And, AGAIN, your ignorant interpretation of the rules is irrelevant because it has already been confirmed by actual college basketball officials over and over, including the HEAD OF THE OFFICIALS NATIONWIDE.

You are wrong, it is not debatable, and you look stupid continuing to argue it.

Someone's a little cranky.  It's possible it wasn't oatmeal and something much less palatable.   

The OR infers that it was EITHER.   My contention is that it was neither.  So GFYS, my position was based in fact reviewing the actual language and determining where it violated the rule. 

Continue to be an Azz.   You haven't done anything other than say I am wrong, while I show evidence based argument around the substantive language of the rule. 

I am quite adept at the English language and don't need a lesson on "Or" from you. 

[lefty08]

Someone's a little cranky.  It's possible it wasn't oatmeal and something much less palatable.   

The OR infers that it was EITHER.   My contention is that it was neither.  So GFYS, my position was based in fact reviewing the actual language and determining where it violated the rule. 

Continue to be an Azz.   You haven't done anything other than say I am wrong, while I show evidence based argument around the substantive language of the rule. 

I am quite adept at the English language and don't need a lesson on "Or" from you.

You're still wrong.......

[(notOM)Rebel123]

You're still wrong.......

^^^this.

[Inhogswetrust]

Here is the actual rule.  The remainder of the text are just examples to provide texture to clarify the rule.  They even state as much with, "included, but not limited to" which allows for additional interpretation.

As I already stated, I acknowledge that it met some of the criteria outlined in the examples.  As I also stated, glad it went in favor of the Hogs.

Those arguing that the push was the reason that it was deemed excessive, also don't understand the rule or are intentionally parsing it for their argument.  The specific example in the rule states, "3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;".  There was a player between Barford and the basket, so while there was a push from behind, the score was not a foregone conclusion.

The only example that even approaches the standard is, "2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,".  An argument can be made that there was a legitimate attempt to play the player, but not the ball on that play.   

So...back to my original assertion, it was in fact a bad call because it was neither excessive or unnecessary at the point in the game that it was called. 

Even with a player between the person with the ball and the board one could say he was trying to score by dribbling towards the basket and could pull up in front of that player and shoot. Thus it just as easily could have been interpreted as a push to keep the player from scoring as not. A blatant push in the back of a player with the ball should always be a flagrant because by nature it is excessive and unnecessary. IF the Seton Hall player had simply reached only in front with only the one arm and not used both and then pushed the back then it would not be excessive since that shows an attempt at the ball moreso.

[Inhogswetrust]

Someone's a little cranky.  It's possible it wasn't oatmeal and something much less palatable.   

The OR infers that it was EITHER.   My contention is that it was neither.  So GFYS, my position was based in fact reviewing the actual language and determining where it violated the rule. 

Continue to be an Azz.   You haven't done anything other than say I am wrong, while I show evidence based argument around the substantive language of the rule. 

I am quite adept at the English language and don't need a lesson on "Or" from you. 

I'm thinking your the kind that thinks that someone getting stabbed and killed is not excessive but getting shot and killed is. Some people take interpretation to extremes or WAY to literal. 

[Science Fiction Greg]

Someone's a little cranky.  It's possible it wasn't oatmeal and something much less palatable.   

The OR infers that it was EITHER.   My contention is that it was neither.  So GFYS, my position was based in fact reviewing the actual language and determining where it violated the rule. 

Continue to be an Azz.   You haven't done anything other than say I am wrong, while I show evidence based argument around the substantive language of the rule. 

I am quite adept at the English language and don't need a lesson on "Or" from you.

So you are arguing that it was entirely necessary to shove the player in the back with two hands, making no play on the ball?

Or was it unnecessary?

Hmm.  Which one? Necessary or unnecessary?

This is a tough one.

Hope you can figure it out.

I'll help you. You appear to need it. The answer is the same as whether or not it is necessary to still be complaining about this call despite the correctness being:

1) obvious
2) literally spelled out as an example in the rulebook
3) confirmed by officials present at the game on replay
4) confirmed by actual officials everywhere, including here
5) confirmed by the national head of officiating

Honestly, you should take a break and come back and look at this with fresh eyes in a couple of days. About the only thing I can think of is your ego is hurt here. This is really not hard.

[PonderinHog]

Can't wait for the sequel!

[Science Fiction Greg]

Those arguing that the push was the reason that it was deemed excessive, also don't understand the rule or are intentionally parsing it for their argument.  The specific example in the rule states, "3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;".  There was a player between Barford and the basket, so while there was a push from behind, the score was not a foregone conclusion.

The only example that even approaches the standard is, "2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,".  An argument can be made that there was a legitimate attempt to play the player, but not the ball on that play.   

As for this complete nonsense, let's slow down and actually look at it:

1) There being a player between Barford and the basket does not mean that the example does not apply.  The "prevent a score" language is referring to an attempt to score, not make an attempt to score that is a foregone conclusion.  The simple reason for that is there are no scores that are foregone conclusions in the game of basketball.  The way to determine if it was an attempt to score was if a player had beaten the defender on the way to the basket.  "On the way to basket" is pretty clear and the fact that he was pushed from behind meets the other part.  The "not a foregone conclusion" and "defender between him and the basket" arguments are red herrings.

2) Your argument that shoving a player in the back is an "attempt to play the player" is hilarious.  You should really understand that the issue here isn't with the word "player," it is "play."  Shoving someone in the back is not playing the player.  Shoving is not a legitimate action in the game of basketball in any circumstance and does not remotely qualify as the action "play."

Honestly.

[k.c.hawg]

Here is the actual rule.  The remainder of the text are just examples to provide texture to clarify the rule.  They even state as much with, "included, but not limited to" which allows for additional interpretation.

"A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act."

As I already stated, I acknowledge that it met some of the criteria outlined in the examples.  As I also stated, glad it went in favor of the Hogs.

A portion of the rule is directly attributable to end of game tactics that used to be common and provided a deterrent to keep teams from extending the game into a free throw contest.
"4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in."

To even get to the examples that did apply, the foul would first have to be "deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary...", which is where I think we caught a break and benefited from a poor call.  Without Barford falling (which was an inadvertent foot clipping a leg), I don't even see the call getting reviewed.  They make the appropriate call of foul and he goes to the line...sinks both and we have the same end.  The problem, especially at the end of the game, is that by itself the foul (which it was just that, a foul) didn't meet the standard for excessive nor unnecessary that would even lead to the examples.

Those arguing that the push was the reason that it was deemed excessive, also don't understand the rule or are intentionally parsing it for their argument.  The specific example in the rule states, "3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;".  There was a player between Barford and the basket, so while there was a push from behind, the score was not a foregone conclusion.

The only example that even approaches the standard is, "2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,".  An argument can be made that there was a legitimate attempt to play the player, but not the ball on that play.   

So...back to my original assertion, it was in fact a bad call because it was neither excessive or unnecessary at the point in the game that it was called. 

<ball served back into the court of those proclaiming I don't know what I am talking about...>

I leave for 36 hours and comeback and here is the same argument, twisting a clear cut rule to fit the argument. Every single person associated with the NCAA tournament officiating has confirmed, you are wrong. And to prove their lack of bias, they have called out other officiating errors as being, incorrectly called.

You have to be a woman!!

[Hoggish1]

Who?  And who cares? 

It WAS a terrible call on the flagrant 1 at that point in the game.  It was obvious that there was no intent to trip. 

Read the rule:  Can't put two hands on the back and shove.  Flagrant 1 every time!  Has nothing to do with "getting a call, finally..."

[Iwastherein1969]

Can't wait for the sequel!

in order to hopefully kill this thread, the QB of the Armadillo's in your picture there may be only a year or two older than our starting QB for next season

[SamBuckhart]

We won! WOOO PIG!!!