Chief’s Briefs - St John’s Edition

[giddyup]

Clingan, Sanogo, Jackson, Karaban and Hawkins could be a nasty 2-3 zone. All sorts of length and pretty quick. A nice offensive combo as well.

Requires Hurley to get out his head and deal with reality. I’ve yet to see try anything but fiddling with combos in the same O and D.

 

[uconn_jack]

Thank god we didn't make #1 in AP, because we might have been the first team to ever go from unranked to #1 to unranked again in the span of a month and a half.

 

[Chief00]

When someone slaps/grabs you across the upper body the natural instinct is to shut your eyes to protect them. However, doing that definitely impacts the fundamental of focusing your eyes on the front of the rim and the ability to finish.

 

[ColchVEGAS]

That Clingan double technical was rediculous.

I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.

 

[2PointGuards]

With St. Johns missing there 3's and taking everything into the paint, why weren't we switching to a zone?

 

[Chief00]

Requires Hurley to get out his head and deal with reality. I’ve yet to see try anything but fiddling with combos in the same O and D.

Will Chief finally get his wish with Danny starting the best 5 players: Clingan, Sanogo, Jackson, Hawkins and Karaban?
Closer to reality than some may think?

 

[Billy Jack]

With St. Johns missing there 3's and taking everything into the paint, why weren't we switching to a zone?

Because it was our D that was responsible for St. John’s missing all those 3’s. Switching to a zone would have given them more open looks and likely better results.

 

[Edward Sargent]

I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.

Clingan actually turned after the defender slapped is hand holding on to the ball

 

[Chief00]

I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.

Anderson was out of position and was not able to make the appropriate calls in real time. That was then followed by some of the most bizairre off court behavior I have ever seen in an official.

 

[pj]

Clingan, Sanogo, Jackson, Karaban and Hawkins could be a nasty 2-3 zone. All sorts of length and pretty quick. A nice offensive combo as well.

It seems like this as the starting lineup and a 2nd unit with either Clingan/Sanogo at center, Samson Johnson or Karaban at 4, Alleyne or Hawkins at 3, Newton/Calcaterra/Hawkins at 2, and Newton/Diarra at 1, would be a reasonable approach. Switch back to man for the 2nd unit.

 

[Rico444]

I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.

If the refs called it correctly, Clingan would've never gotten elbowed. Whether he meant to do it or not (I'm sure he didn't), elbowing a guy in the head should be a foul. So ultimately it worked out in our favor since the refs missed Clingan's elbow.

 

[ColchVEGAS]

If the refs called it correctly, Clingan would've never gotten elbowed. Whether he meant to do it or not (I'm sure he didn't), elbowing a guy in the head should be a foul. So ultimately it worked out in our favor since the refs missed Clingan's elbow.

I agree, I am not saying it was not a foul on Clingan, as it clearly was a flagrant 1. I just do not understand how a basketball move that incidentally causes a foul can be assessed the same as a non basketball move which was deliberately done to attempt to injure another player.

To me they are different things, both are fouls, but should not be assessed the same. As far as I know there has never been a leniency rule for payback fouls.

 

[Rico444]

I agree, I am not saying it was not a foul on Clingan, as it clearly was a flagrant 1. I just do not understand how a basketball move that incidentally causes a foul can be assessed the same as a non basketball move which was deliberately done to attempt to injure another player.

To me they are different things, both are fouls, but should not be assessed the same. As far as I know there has never been a leniency rule for payback fouls.

If you ask me, not based off of the way the rules are written, but to what I think is fair, Clingan's should be a common foul and the other one should have been a Flagrant 1.

"A flagrant 1 foul is two shots and the ball and that means excessive in nature or unnecessary or avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play.

A flagrant 2 foul is two shots and the ball and the player is ejected from the game. The rules committee added more words to describe this scenario, including brutal, harsh or cruel or dangerous or punishing."

The line about a flagrant 2 being "brutal, harsh or cruel or dangerous or punishing" doesn't really apply to the retaliation.

 

[ColchVEGAS]

Agreed. Clingan's used to be a common foul up until a few years ago when they changed it so any elbows above the shoulder are considered Flagrant 1.

 

[FLDawg16]

I mean if you want to go by the books if it was called right then Clingan's elbow never would've happened. He was getting reached in on and mauled which didn't get called so he pulled the ball up high and caused the elbow