Great screenshot here. Problem is that was basically not called the entire night. If it was, Wesson fouls out in about 15 minutes and none of this discussion matters because we win easily.
Fact of the matter is this crew let the game turn into a complete cluster**** and they just couldn’t get it back on the rails. Then decided to inject themselves further in the last 30 seconds.
The fact that the richest conference in the land can’t hire one crew of competent basketball officials is completely embarrassing.
Agreed. My first point was exactly why intent is irrelevant (because it can’t be divined).
As for whether the ball was live, isn’t it dead once they call the foul on Young (i.e., my second point)? If so, X definitely fouled him, but it was after the play was over and X was fouled first. If you travel or step out of bound after you are fouled (like Davis getting mugged under the basket), the foul is what would stick (if correctly called), not the turnover. Why wouldn’t this be the same?
In a typical foul situation, the ball becomes dead when the whistle blows. An exception is a shooting foul, where the ball remains live while the shot is still in the air.
Respectfully, Dylan (and others in the thread opining on X’s intent), it doesn’t matter what you or I or anyone else in this thread or elsewhere thinks X’s intent was. Unless you believe that Juwan is a liar, he said flatly in his post-game presser that “I asked the ref if he grabbed to brace his fall and he said yes.” So to be clear, the very crew which made the call determined that he was NOT grabbing Young with intent to gain advantage, AND that nonetheless, grabbing somebody by the jersey to “brace his fall” is a flagrant 1. Put another way, it’s worse to brace one’s fall than it is to knock him down in the first place (the foul drew a 2 shot foul–the grab to brace, drew 2 shots PLUS the ball). So much for concerns about player safety.
And it might be different if X had grabbed Young in a way which could have caused Young serious injury–by the throat, a Brad Davison like by the nuts, etc.–if this was the case, it might be understandable for refs to call flagrants to stop these things from happening. That seems to be what Carstenson was saying to Bilas with his bought him all the way to the ground comment. But that is categorically false–Young was fully on his feet, complained to the refs, and then, when walking away, tripped on/got tangled with the photographers. X didn’t pull him to the ground. The refs looked at the replay for several minutes–that was the basis for the call. How they could watch that tape and think he pulled down by X is beyond me, and beyond anyone I have talked to, even including those who think the call is closer than I do.
I am fortunate to count a 40+ year DI coach (now retired) as one of my close friends. I spoke with him this afternoon, and he described the call of a flagrant on X as an unbelievably bad call, one of the worst he has ever seen, and one he’s never, ever seen observed in the thousands. of games he’s watched or participated in throughout his coaching or playing career. Take that for what it’s worth–to me, it speaks volumes.
Yeah, I wasn’t really defending the call? Which it seems like you are implying that I was.
I too have never seen a call made like that. I just was pointing out that to me it looked like a situation where Simpson was trying to initiate some contact to draw the foul.
Something I’ve seen mentioned is how we failed to execute the 2-for-1 in the final minute again. While it’d be ideal to leave 37-38 seconds, I think Simpson going to the line with 33 seconds left (sans F1 review/call) means that it was executed ok. We were guaranteed a chance at another possession - potentially with the lead - so I’d say they at least get a passing grade for that sequence.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were defending the call. What I mean was that once the ref said he was trying to brace himself, anybody else’s belief as to X’s intent becomes irrelevant. You can’t say that a guy is trying to protect himself from injury and then call a flagrant foul (or even a common foul) on him for such self protection unless his method of protection involves the risk of significant injury to someone else.
unless his method of protection involves the risk of significant injury to someone else.
I think that is exactly the reason they called it a flagrant 1. It was considered to be “severe or excessive” and put Young at risk for injury.
It’s stupid as hell, but that’s what happened.
I could see them going with a challenge system like the NFL. Challenge the call and you burn a timeout. They also need to limit the review to 60 seconds or some reasonable number. Litigating fouls endlessly is so tedious. Sometimes these reviews seem like they take 5 minutes. I’d be ok with reducing the number of timeouts if not eliminating them. Works pretty well for soccer (pre-VAR).
The only severe or excessive risk to Young was to whether his jersey would remain unripped. Young was standing upright to complain to the ref, and then tripped several seconds later while walking away. That’s just preposterous–not you, but if that’s the official explanation.