Seton Hall vs Kentucky Game Thread.

[Lighthouse]

Glad someone finally brought up the double dribble.....

Should the elbow to the throat been a flagrant??

I don't think so, simply because it was obviously unintentional. I know what the rule says, but sometimes plain ole common sense has to come into play.

[lilproUK98]

I don't think so, simply because it was obviously unintentional. I know what the rule says, but sometimes plain ole common sense has to come into play.

Hard to judge intent though imo. I bet if you took a poll it would be close to 50/50 on if it was intentional or not. It was extended and nailed PJ right in the throat. I think it was a heat of the moment elbow meant to get PJ out of his space.

[Blue Heaven]

I was under the impression that blows from the neck up is a flagrant regardless of intent.

[justford]

I don't think so, simply because it was obviously unintentional. I know what the rule says, but sometimes plain ole common sense has to come into play.

So why doesn't the rule say it has to be intentional? Seems like this would take the pressure off the officials if called according to the way it is written.

[Lighthouse]

Hard to judge intent though imo. I bet if you took a poll it would be close to 50/50 on if it was intentional or not. It was extended and nailed PJ right in the throat. I think it was a heat of the moment elbow meant to get PJ out of his space.

What I posted was my opinion of the play from experience. It always amazes me how many directions we go after a post. Please notice the Big Grin.

But to answer the above questions and any more, I will post the Flagrant 1 Personal Foul rule as written.

c. Flagrant 1 personal foul. 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. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent; 2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; 3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score; 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; 5. Contact with a player making a throw-in, and 6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (See Rule 4-18.7). 7. Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm in an attempt to deceive the official into believing the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul.

[lilproUK98]

What I posted was my opinion of the play from experience. It always amazes me how many directions we go after a post. Please notice the Big Grin.

But to answer the above questions and any more, I will post the Flagrant 1 Personal Foul rule as written.

c. Flagrant 1 personal foul. 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. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent; 2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; 3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score; 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; 5. Contact with a player making a throw-in, and 6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (See Rule 4-18.7). 7. Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm in an attempt to deceive the official into believing the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul.

So intent has nothing to do with it and it should have been a flagrant 1, got it!

[catfaninin]

What I posted was my opinion of the play from experience. It always amazes me how many directions we go after a post. Please notice the Big Grin.

But to answer the above questions and any more, I will post the Flagrant 1 Personal Foul rule as written.

c. Flagrant 1 personal foul. 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. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent; 2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; 3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score; 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; 5. Contact with a player making a throw-in, and 6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (See Rule 4-18.7). 7. Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm in an attempt to deceive the official into believing the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul.

My thought at the time was that it was unintentional, but I expected it would be called flagrant based on what I thought the rule was. After seeing the rule I have no idea how that play should have been called.

One other question I would ask is this. Section 2 says contact designed to stop the clock. But it happens every game. And everyone in the building knows the intent. Yet that is never called?

[G0Cats#1]

I saw a couple things today. One, which I dislike mentioning but I've confirmed it with another official. The 3 Seton Hall scored near the end of regulation should not have counted because the SH kid double dribbled before he shot the ball. No excuse for an official to miss that.

The other thing may or may not be anything, but coming out of a TO PJ said something to Hagans and Hagans said something back. PJ went immediately to one of the Assistant Coaches and talked to him, probably about what he and Hagans talked about. It seemed odd to me the way that happened.

20,000 people saw the Double dribble,,,, none of which were refs......had it been us, 0h yes, it would have been called..

[lilproUK98]

My thought at the time was that it was unintentional, but I expected it would be called flagrant based on what I thought the rule was. After seeing the rule I have no idea how that play should have been called.

One other question I would ask is this. Section 2 says contact designed to stop the clock. But it happens every game. And everyone in the building knows the intent. Yet that is never called?

#1 on the list answers your question. In what world is a hard extended elbow to the throat not excessive?

[40bill]

While I understand everyone having concern over a missed call, that doesn't change the point that talent wise this should not have had an effect on the outcome

As of right now, Kentucky is a poor team. Auburn almost beat Duke. Last night, Tennessee DID beat Gonzaga.

That puts this team in a really bad light.

[Lighthouse]

20,000 people saw the Double dribble,,,, none of which were refs......had it been us, 0h yes, it would have been called..

And that comment was made from viewing our games totally through Blue tinted glasses.

[Lighthouse]

My thought at the time was that it was unintentional, but I expected it would be called flagrant based on what I thought the rule was. After seeing the rule I have no idea how that play should have been called.

One other question I would ask is this. Section 2 says contact designed to stop the clock. But it happens every game. And everyone in the building knows the intent. Yet that is never called?

I thought it would be called a F-1 too, but was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't. From my point of view, it should have been a common foul and nothing more. Officials to often interpret the rule to cover their butts.

[TrueblueCATfan]

Just got home from NYC and I was at the game.....just sick afterwards......will say the BBN had way more fans than Seton Hall

[Blue Heaven]

Just got home from NYC and I was at the game.....just sick afterwards......will say the BBN had way more fans than Seton Hall

Listening to the KSR post game, they said about 10,000 fans total with 3/4 of them Seton Hall fans.

[TrueblueCATfan]

Listening to the KSR post game, they said about 10,000 fans total with 3/4 of them Seton Hall fans.

Really????....I was in the lower level behind the UK bench and that is not what I saw or heard