The "soft" myth and the reality of officiating.

[TPFKAPFS]

NOPE! It was a Flag 1 all day and twice on Sunday! He looked back because he just got pushed in the back and he had his elbows in a perfect basketball play alignment. He meant to give a hit, but not to the head. The flag 1 should be because of the contact to the head, the ejection required way more speculation than the evidence provided!

Refs should not be allowed to do little league games!

 

[dtodd4475]

NOPE! It was a Flag 1 all day and twice on Sunday! He looked back because he just got pushed in the back and he had his elbows in a perfect basketball play alignment. He meant to give a hit, but not to the head. The flag 1 should be because of the contact to the head, the ejection required way more speculation than the evidence provided!

Refs should not be allowed to do little league games!

Refs were awful I agree with that part. Where we disagree is if you concede he meant to "give a hit" with that elbow and it indeed landed to the head then it is a flagrant 2. Brady missing his intended target would not change that. If it was deemed intentional and landed to the neck/head, well.

I think Brady will learn from it, and thankfully we survived.

 

[bluetoe]

In live action I immediately thought flagrant 2. If it is deemed an intentional elbow and it lands to the neck or head it is a flagrant 2.

I'm guessing Brady wanted to crack him in the chest? He did glance back after getting shoved, with no call, he did bow up, and he landed to the head. I thought flagrant 2. There was intent, maybe not intended for the head, but that is where it landed.

and that's the rub. For all I know Brady was trying to knock his head off...but there is no indication other than circumstance to indicate that this was the case, and the evidence was just too weak to make that assumption, particularly in a crucial situation.

 

[TarHeelMark]

Does anyone know how that decision is made on trying to decide close calls like this one? Does it have to be unanimous, or just 2 of the 3 is enough to say whether it's flagrant 1 or 2?

 

[dtodd4475]

I believe they go over each step. He bowed up, so flagrant 1 was set, then they look for where it landed, which was to the head.

I am having trouble seeing if they deemed it a flagrant 1 act how they could ignore that it was to the head, and then leave it as only a flagrant 1 ?

 

[bluetoe]

Does anyone know how that decision is made on trying to decide close calls like this one? Does it have to be unanimous, or just 2 of the 3 is enough to say whether it's flagrant 1 or 2?

there is a lead official in every crew, and I imagine he has the final say.

 

[bluetoe]

I believe they go over each step. He bowed up, so flagrant 1 was set, then they look for where it landed, which was to the head.

I am having trouble seeing if they deemed it a flagrant 1 act how they could ignore that it was to the head, and then leave it as only a flagrant 1 ?

I'm having a hard time understanding this 'bowing up' and if there was such, what it has to do with anything. The question is was the elbow delivered intentionally to the head, and I see no evidence that clearly shows that to be the case. Sure, it could have been intentional but you can't make assumptions with that much on the line. Manek had his own head turned away from Sochak (?) so I don't know how he could be seen as unquestionably headhunting.

 

[dtodd4475]

I'm having a hard time understanding this 'bowing up' and if there was such, what it has to do with anything. The question is was the elbow delivered intentionally to the head, and I see no evidence that clearly shows that to be the case. Sure, it could have been intentional but you can't make assumptions with that much on the line. Manek had his own head turned away from Sochak (?) so I don't know how he could be seen as unquestionably headhunting.

The headhunting part would not be needed, or come into play in the decision, it would not have to be aimed at the head. If it is deemed he "bowed up" or went to give a whack then it is a flagrant 1. He missed or hit his target, who knows, doesn't matter, he made contact to the head not the chest with his flagrant 1 action, that takes it to flagrant 2.

I guess what I am seeing is if everyone agrees it was flagrant 1 level, which shows intent. The fact that it landed to the head is all that matters to go to a flagrant 2. No guessing what the intent of the flagrant 1 was, it landed to the head. That was the result.

If it was deemed just a basketball action then it is incidental contact, even to the head. It was not deemed merely a basketball action, so where it landed is what matters.

 

[strummingram]

It's a completely absurd notion that he deserved ejection. There is nothing that warrants an ejection. There is nothing that proves, or even hints, that Brady was INTENTIONALLY hitting Sochan in the face. Sochan was an instigator throughout the game, from the very beginning. Those refs should NEVER officiate another game, period!

 

[dtodd4475]

It's a completely absurd notion that he deserved ejection. There is nothing that warrants an ejection. There is nothing that proves, or even hints, that Brady was INTENTIONALLY hitting Sochan in the face. Sochan was an instigator throughout the game, from the very beginning. Those refs should NEVER officiate another game, period!

Again, agree with Sochan garbage all game, and the refs awfulness. Disagree that once Brady gave the shot back that intentionally targeting his head mattered at all.

I'm glad it cannot be seen as he targeted a head shot, because then he would be suspended as well. The flagrant 2 carries an automatic ejection for the remainder of that game though.

 

[bluetoe]

The headhunting part would not be needed, or come into play in the decision, it would not have to be aimed at the head. If it is deemed he "bowed up" or went to give a whack then it is a flagrant 1. He missed or hit his target, who knows, doesn't matter, he made contact to the head not the chest with his flagrant 1 action, that takes it to flagrant 2.

I guess what I am seeing is if everyone agrees it was flagrant 1 level, which shows intent. The fact that it landed to the head is all that matters to go to a flagrant 2. No guessing what the intent of the flagrant 1 was, it landed to the head. That was the result.

If it was deemed just a basketball action then it is incidental contact, even to the head. It was not deemed merely a basketball action, so where it landed is what matters.

NCAA[edit]​

The NCAA's Playing Rules Oversight Panel adopted the "flagrant" term before the 2011-12 season for both men's and women's basketball.[5] However, the NCAA's women's rules committee abandoned the term "flagrant", effective with the 2017–18 season, in favor of FIBA's "unsportsmanlike" and "disqualifying" terms.[6] These fouls are counted as personal fouls and technical fouls.

• A flagrant 1 foul (men's) or unsportsmanlike foul (women's) involves excessive or severe contact during a live ball, including especially when a player "swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders". This offense includes the former "intentional foul" of fouling an opposing player to prevent an easy breakaway score. In women's basketball only, the unsportsmanlike foul also includes contact dead-ball technical fouls. The penalty for a flagrant 1 or unsportsmanlike foul is two free throws and a throw-in for the opposing team at the out-of-bounds spot nearest the foul.
• A flagrant 2 foul (men's) or disqualifying foul (women's) involves unsportsmanlike conduct that is extreme in nature, including "when a player swings an elbow excessively and makes contact above the shoulders", or excessive or severe contact during a dead ball (men only). Fighting is also a flagrant 2 or disqualifying foul. The penalty for a flagrant 2 or disqualifying foul is immediate ejection of the offender, plus two free throws and a throw-in for the opposing team at the division line opposite the scorer's table.

To my knowledge, the only part of the body residing above the shoulders is the head. As I pointed out before, an intentional elbow to the head is considered the same as a punch to the face, and THAT would be a flagrant 2. An incidental non-excessive elbow to the head as described above is a flagrant 1, which is what Brady should have gotten.

ETA...and I still don't know what this 'bowing up' is or what it has to do with anything. Is there a rule against 'bowing up'?

 

[CrazyHeel]

I think putting a player in a head lock while on the floor should be a flagrant two, but what do I know.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

I said I thought he meant to give a hit because I played college bball not because there was any evidence whatsoever! A great deal of contact is intentional AND part of the game! Boxing out REQUIRES you to give a hit but it is part of the game! If Cisco was 2 inches taller it would have been a "no call"

There is not one shred of evidence that he meant to elbow that punk! He should get a Flag 1 for making contact to the head and there is nothing else that should even be considered! Both levels involve hits to the head and neither mentions intentionality as the threshold! The difference is in the severity and that action was not "severe" or "extreme"! My Mother has hit me upside the head harder than Cisco got it!

 

[bluetoe]

I said I thought he meant to give a hit because I played college bball not because there was any evidence whatsoever! A great deal of contact is intentional AND part of the game! Boxing out REQUIRES you to give a hit but it is part of the game! If Cisco was 2 inches taller it would have been a "no call"

There is not one shred of evidence that he meant to elbow that punk! He should get a Flag 1 for making contact to the head and there is nothing else that should even be considered! Both levels involve hits to the head and neither mentions intentionality as the threshold! The difference is in the severity and that action was not "severe" or "extreme"! My Mother has hit me upside the head harder than Cisco got it!

perzackly

 

[dtodd4475]

NCAA[edit]​

The NCAA's Playing Rules Oversight Panel adopted the "flagrant" term before the 2011-12 season for both men's and women's basketball.[5] However, the NCAA's women's rules committee abandoned the term "flagrant", effective with the 2017–18 season, in favor of FIBA's "unsportsmanlike" and "disqualifying" terms.[6] These fouls are counted as personal fouls and technical fouls.

• A flagrant 1 foul (men's) or unsportsmanlike foul (women's) involves excessive or severe contact during a live ball, including especially when a player "swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders". This offense includes the former "intentional foul" of fouling an opposing player to prevent an easy breakaway score. In women's basketball only, the unsportsmanlike foul also includes contact dead-ball technical fouls. The penalty for a flagrant 1 or unsportsmanlike foul is two free throws and a throw-in for the opposing team at the out-of-bounds spot nearest the foul.
• A flagrant 2 foul (men's) or disqualifying foul (women's) involves unsportsmanlike conduct that is extreme in nature, including "when a player swings an elbow excessively and makes contact above the shoulders", or excessive or severe contact during a dead ball (men only). Fighting is also a flagrant 2 or disqualifying foul. The penalty for a flagrant 2 or disqualifying foul is immediate ejection of the offender, plus two free throws and a throw-in for the opposing team at the division line opposite the scorer's table.

To my knowledge, the only part of the body residing above the shoulders is the head. As I pointed out before, an intentional elbow to the head is considered the same as a punch to the face, and THAT would be a flagrant 2. An incidental non-excessive elbow to the head as described above is a flagrant 1, which is what Brady should have gotten.

ETA...and I still don't know what this 'bowing up' is or what it has to do with anything. Is there a rule against 'bowing up'?

I am in no way excusing the dirty play by Sochan throughout the entire game, or trying to paint Brady as the bad guy. It seemed clear that he was sick of it and was going to give a well deserved crack back. He executed it poorly, and landed above the shoulders to the head or neck.

The "bowing up" is raising the arms and seeking contact. As a player and coach the term was often used with refs about guys doing just that, especially when boxing out. Brady "bowed up" that was his mistake that caused him to contact above the shoulders. If he came straight across into his chest it would of sent the message, and been a clear flagrant 1 nothing more, unless he cooked back and deliver it full out.

I agree he did not give a full cock back rip through elbow, so maybe they could have said not excessive? He only gave him a 50% bow? I think the problem was that they determined that he clearly sought the contact with it, and the next step in the process is to then determine where that contact connected, which was crystal clear. The 2 together equals a flagrant 2.

 

[bluetoe]

I think putting a player in a head lock while on the floor should be a flagrant two, but what do I know.

it's crazy that I have to ask which play you're referring to. Sochan sort of put RJ Davis in a headlock as they dove for that loose ball late in the game, and in replay you can see that he initially went to Davis' body, and hard, in order to pin him before he went to the ball. I would have settled for just a plain old loose ball foul, not that I had any expectation that one would have been called.

 

[UNC-75]

Lots of opinions and some very good questions and opinions on this thread. I can't imagine how many pages it would now be if we had lost.

 

[TarHeelTroy]

Looks like Brady inadvertently contacted him in the head to me, and there was not much force behind it either. If there had been "extreme" or even "excessive" force behind it, there would have been blood most likely. But looks to me like a normal boxout arm motion which got redirected to the guy's head when the elbow ran along the guy's upper arm and across the shoulder.

 

[dtodd4475]

The other chicken shit dirty tactic he employed numerous times was falling while getting boxed out and having the opponent tumble over him and bring him down. He would then compound it by tangling his legs while on the ground.

They actually gave Mando the dead ball leg foul when he did it again, even after Sochan already had been caught doing it earlier. Even after goading Brady. Inexcusable by the refs.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

There is NO evidence of intent AND intent is not part of the rule!

I believe the headlock was from the previous game and I understand getting your punk arses confused!

 

[dtodd4475]

The intent would be the "non basketball" move the swing of the elbow. In the Illinois/Houston game Cockburn was fouled, the defender played the ball with his left hand, but pulled Cockburn's right shoulder down with his right hand as he did so. It earned him a flagrant 1, non basketball move that caused that contact. Same with the hook and hold calls, if you swing down after the hook it goes to flagrant.

When Brady comes back after the missed clear shove and swings through (granted not 100%) that was where the intent part as to giving which flagrant comes into play. If he landed to the chest or shoulder it would of been a flagrant 1 he did not land to the body.

Could of been seen as a 1 with the excessive part, I expected a 2 when I saw it unfold.

 

[bluetoe]

I am in no way excusing the dirty play by Sochan throughout the entire game, or trying to paint Brady as the bad guy. It seemed clear that he was sick of it and was going to give a well deserved crack back. He executed it poorly, and landed above the shoulders to the head or neck.

The "bowing up" is raising the arms and seeking contact. As a player and coach the term was often used with refs about guys doing just that, especially when boxing out. Brady "bowed up" that was his mistake that caused him to contact above the shoulders. If he came straight across into his chest it would of sent the message, and been a clear flagrant 1 nothing more, unless he cooked back and deliver it full out.

I agree he did not give a full cock back rip through elbow, so maybe they could have said not excessive? He only gave him a 50% bow? I think the problem was that they determined that he clearly sought the contact with it, and the next step in the process is to then determine where that contact connected, which was crystal clear. The 2 together equals a flagrant 2.

I guess you're describing the typical boxing out move where a player extends his elbows/arms back to fence in the defensive player, but I'm not 100% on that. I never heard that called 'bowing up' but I can see it being called that I guess. Either way, I appreciate the explanation.

And if that is the bowing up you are referring to, he no doubt was high with his elbow. And he did push that elbow backward. I think that's what you're saying, is that this bowing up should have been lower to the body and not in head range, which I can't disagree with. But I still don't see unquestionable intent to contact the head, and it is my belief that a flagrant 2 would require such intent.

Good back and forth with you, that's how we figure things out. And I admire that you bucked popular opinion to get to the truth of it as you see it.

 

[BlackRanger]

It has been noted that the NCAA is all about "$$$". Yes unfortunately.
With that being said, who profits from this $$$? Do not be naive. The odds makers stand to win (or shiver: lose) big on a big game. In my opinion this is why first haves are so different than second haves. We all know that profession BB officials are indeed corrupt. Do we not believe it has permeated to amateur bb?
Bets are made through out a game. Large bets, small bets...but it is the large ones that the "Las Vegas" tracks. Halfway through the second half of the Baylor game, Manek somehow was charged with a flagrant 2, when a 1 would have been sufficient. From there on out, the officiating "interpretations" were guiding the game in Baylor's direction. UNC did loose its composure for a bit, Baylor did attack effectively but the officials conveniently interpreted close events to the benefit of Baylor. By changing their allowance for physical ball from the trend set in the first half, they would easily be able to cover any large bet made during the second half in order for the houses to grab up the money that was laid down during the build to "25" (25 point lead). Someone was suckered and the house was waiting like a shark.
Officiating is orchestrated by the betting houses. Do not be so naive to think otherwise. Why do critical UNC players often receive multiple quick fouls early? (see Bacot during the UNC-duke game in Chapel Hill)
In football, the preset Over/under is so close to the eventual final results.
Why do we think that there is such a cleared pathway for a final four UNC-duke matchup. Think of the money to be made there...
For now on out, when you see a change of officiating schemes during a game think Sam "Ace" Rothstein. Sorry to throw cold water on our games but, as others have said, follow the money. Why do so many games finish in the area of the original spread line? Its scary.

 

[TarHeelTroy]

And he did push that elbow backward. I think that's what you're saying, is that this bowing up should have been lower to the body and not in head range, which I can't disagree with

I noticed Sochan's left elbow pushed up under Brady's armpit which looks like it could have redirected Brady's elbow trajectory higher toward the head area

 

[dtodd4475]

I guess you're describing the typical boxing out move where a player extends his elbows/arms back to fence in the defensive player, but I'm not 100% on that. I never heard that called 'bowing up' but I can see it being called that I guess. Either way, I appreciate the explanation.

And if that is the bowing up you are referring to, he no doubt was high with his elbow. And he did push that elbow backward. I think that's what you're saying, is that this bowing up should have been lower to the body and not in head range, which I can't disagree with. But I still don't see unquestionable intent to contact the head, and it is my belief that a flagrant 2 would require such intent.

Good back and forth with you, that's how we figure things out. And I admire that you bucked popular opinion to get to the truth of it as you see it.

Thanks, for bouncing your take on the play with me as well. I can see how the "excessive" part can be seen as lacking, and maybe limiting it to a flagrant 1.

 

[bluetoe]

The way the game is officiated has changed for a variety of reasons. First off, they have adjusted to more mimic the NBA. And 2nd, I think they relaxed things to assist in keeping the games moving for TV. In that process, they have lost control. Unless absolutely egregious, walking isn't called. You see many players, use that hop back step with both feet, like Hardin, to shoot a three. It's a walk. But is never called. You apparently can clear out with the off arm. The crossover dribble that folks like to show when it paralyzes a defender? It's palming. But can't remember the last time I saw it called. These days, rarely is a solid screen set. It is a hip check. And they are always moving. Could they get things back under control? Yes. But you would have to go through about half a season with games taking four hours as players realized what they couldn't do. But then you have folks that take advantage of it. They just grab and bump at will knowing that the refs can't call everything and then the game turns into what was seen yesterday. He doesn't play like that anymore, but remember Rick Barnes at Clemson? He knew he didn't have the talent to compete most of the time. So he turned it into a street fight. And it worked for him.

" but remember Rick Barnes at Clemson? He knew he didn't have the talent to compete most of the time. So he turned it into a street fight. And it worked for him."

lol, but sometimes it doesn't...

 

[WoadBlue]

and that's the rub. For all I know Brady was trying to knock his head off...but there is no indication other than circumstance to indicate that this was the case, and the evidence was just too weak to make that assumption, particularly in a crucial situation.

Now don't be silly. Those refs knew that Manek intended to murder the innocent one with his elbow, just as those refs knew that the innocent one (whose hair was bleached to proclaim his innocence) was, well, not guilty of anything more than an occasional being a bit out of place and accidentally touching someone.

 

[WoadBlue]

it's crazy that I have to ask which play you're referring to. Sochan sort of put RJ Davis in a headlock as they dove for that loose ball late in the game, and in replay you can see that he initially went to Davis' body, and hard, in order to pin him before he went to the ball. I would have settled for just a plain old loose ball foul, not that I had any expectation that one would have been called.

If The Innocent one had been called for a foul, then it would have called into question his innocence. And then hooligans would have asserted, with no evidence or logic, that Manek was ejected unfairly.

The Innocent One must have his innocence protected and promoted. So, players must take great pains not to get their heads stuck inside the arms of The Innocent One.

 

[gary-7]

Refs and Baylor got what they deserved. Justice was served.

...only if those zebras sit home for the duration like Baylor.

 

[DSouthr]

View embedded media

Looks like Brady inadvertently contacted him in the head to me, and there was not much force behind it either. If there had been "extreme" or even "excessive" force behind it, there would have been blood most likely. But looks to me like a normal boxout arm motion which got redirected to the guy's head when the elbow ran along the guy's upper arm and across the shoulder.

Notice blondie, just prior to the "elbow" hit Manek in the ribs with a fore arm shiver, in doing so he duked down.; Brady's arm was elevated up because he was hit with the fore arm shiver, when he went to block out, his arm was raised by the blow blondie hit him with and blondies head was not where Manek expected it to be.

For it to be a legit F-2, you would have to see clear intent, Brady was making a basketball move, I saw zero intent from Brady. A call like that really cheapens the intent of the F-2 call, the NCAA needs to address this and issue a public apology.

But I did actually see a F-2 foul in this game, blondie locked up Bacot's legs when Bacot was off balance and trying to back up. Blondie refused to release Bacot's legs and with Bacot being off balance as he was not only was it clearly intentional, it could have caused Bacot to blow out a knee. That was CLEARLY intentional, it was in no way a basketball movement, and the refusal to release his leg move it to an intent to harm Bacot. You simply can not let that go and hammer Manek with that BS F-2 nonsense. 3 separate points in that game blondie went extreme bush league and he finishes the game with only 3 fouls? Don't forget, with the Baylor players instigating the ruff house play, all the hard trapping ect, they finish the second half with only 1 foul and we get nailed for 10? Fine if the refs need to clean up physical contact but you call it same same both ways and that crew did not do that.

 

[39 Feet Above Sea Level]

The headlock referred to in this thread was Marquette's Darryl Morsell vs. Caleb Love.
That was in the undercard preliminary match.
Common theme: If we bully/goad/agitate we can precipitate a North Carolina response that
might get one of their players benched. And it worked.
Would Brady have been ejected if the score was close? Hmmmm. I wonder.

 

[39 Feet Above Sea Level]

...only if those zebras sit home for the duration like Baylor.

15 games left. NO WAY any of those three refs are involved in any of them.

 

[Lewis&Miller]

The apparent only difference between the two flagrant fouls is the judgement of the referees at that moment. These referees are trying to weigh in unnecessary factors that should not be considered. This crew was unprepared to make a flagrant 2 call. The NCAA says the crew must determine if brutal, harsh, cruel, dangerous, or punishing would be a description of the play for flagrant 2. If the crew truly applied the "words that one would use to describe" for flagrant 2, Pinky would have been rewarded one when he "dangerously" leg locked both of Bacots ankles. This could easily have resulted in an injury just as Bradys elbow could. Sure you can say they missed on the first (Pinky/Bacot) and correctly called the Manek elbow but that shows the unpreparedness of the crew.

There is one thing for sure, the NCAA will have the refs on high alert for the application of the flagrant foul rule beginning this Thursday. Of course, the coaches(especially Hubert) have already addressed this with their players. The problem with this rule as written is that its a judgement call and not based on rules or principles.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Intent is NOT part of the rule! The only difference between the two levels is how hard/dangerous the hit was! Why is this so hard to see? There is no further merit to this discussion to me so I'm done, even though I usually like a spirited intellectual debate! The call was garbage and it almost derailed a magical run through the tourney! Cisco should have received 2 Contact techs or at least 1 contact tech and 1 flagrant 1 AND he should have fouled out near the beginning of the 2nd half! Manek should have received a Flag 1 and finished out his potential 40 point game. The refs should be done for this tourney and I would lobby for them not to do any more ACC games.

 

[bluetoe]

Intent is NOT part of the rule! The only difference between the two levels is how hard/dangerous the hit was! Why is this so hard to see? There is no further merit to this discussion to me so I'm done, even though I usually like a spirited intellectual debate! The call was garbage and it almost derailed a magical run through the tourney! Cisco should have received 2 Contact techs or at least 1 contact tech and 1 flagrant 1 AND he should have fouled out near the beginning of the 2nd half! Manek should have received a Flag 1 and finished out his potential 40 point game. The refs should be done for this tourney and I would lobby for them not to do any more ACC games.

no offense, but can one be unintentionally 'brutal, harsh, cruel, (dangerous), or punishing'? And if you go along with me and others who think that Sochan's leglock maneuver should have warranted a flagrant, would a flagrant have been warranted if the legs in question were apparently just accidentally entangled? Or would it be that the clear intent was what actually warranted the flagrant? Just my opinion, but I think some things meant to be understood aren't always spelled out.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Yes you can be unintentionally dangerous: Going hard for a block of a break away and taking out the legs or hitting the head of a jumping player resulting in injury or its potential can be BOTH brutal and unintentional. Undercutting someone during a rebound can be too! (If I back up trying to box out and am unaware the the guy just jumped, I could unintentionally create a very dangerous situation) There is no benefit from asking refs to read minds. A player just grabbing someone is obviously intentional but most other scenarios would require the refs to be mind-readers. It is already a difficult job trying to establish the threshold between the two levels without adding determining intent!

 

[UNC-75]

The headlock referred to in this thread was Marquette's Darryl Morsell vs. Caleb Love.
That was in the undercard preliminary match.
Common theme: If we bully/goad/agitate we can precipitate a North Carolina response that
might get one of their players benched. And it worked.
Would Brady have been ejected if the score was close? Hmmmm. I wonder.

I think not. The Zebra all too often call a game with one eye on the scoreboard. They felt the game was over so they best put an end to any rough play before someone got hurt. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit. But if that were true one would think they would then go out of the way to “help” UNC get the benefits of any borderline call which clearly wasn’t the case The calls were not called down the middle until OT. Refs that have such inconsistent, blown calls, down right bias should go home for the duration of the tournament, maybe longer. I’m very surprised we have not heard some comments and discipline from the NCAA.

 

[DSouthr]

no offense, but can one be unintentionally 'brutal, harsh, cruel, (dangerous), or punishing'? And if you go along with me and others who think that Sochan's leglock maneuver should have warranted a flagrant, would a flagrant have been warranted if the legs in question were apparently just accidentally entangled? Or would it be that the clear intent was what actually warranted the flagrant? Just my opinion, but I think some things meant to be understood aren't always spelled out.

Well, first, blondie didn't just hold his leg lock but he readjusted it as Bacot moved backwards and re-secured it in MMA fashion, unquestionable intent shown by re-securing the leg lock.

Now yes, the NCAA says any blow to the head, be it intentional or not is a flagrant and yes Manek's elbow did make some contact with blondies face. But it was not a full force elbow, had manek had intent to harm there would have been blood. But the fact is blondie ducked in to Manek's elbow and sold it as worse than what it was. I can buy it as a F-1 by the technical application of the rule but under no circumstance was Brady guilty of a F-2. The NCAA should issue the kid a public apology and that entire crew should be at very least done for this post season. That was a shameful act by those refs, I would fire them if I could!

The way this game was called, it really looked to me like there was more than a little gambling influence going on in what they were allowing Baylor to get away with and calling touch fouls on UNC players? Example, think it was Caleb in the back court, they pressured him out to the half court line, when Caleb tried to drive around the defender that defender bodied Caleb and forced him back to step on the half court line. Now that was a crystal clear foul, out in the open for all to see and no foul call, they gave the ball back to Baylor? As I recall, at least 3 of Caleb's fouls were touch fouls, ok call the touch fouls, that is fine but call the other teams for their touch fouls, at very least call them for their hard fouls!

 

[strummingram]

I’m very surprised we have not heard some comments and discipline from the NCAA.

I'm not. That's one institution that has completely exceeded it's usefulness.

 

[gary-7]

I'm not. That's one institution that has completely exceeded it's usefulness.

Case in point: I just saw that Hampton and Kissinger are included in the Regional zebra rosters... and Hampton is in ours.
Un-f***ing-real. NCAA continues to be a bad joke.