- Joined
- May 27, 2015
- Messages
- 16,354
- Reaction Score
- 111,812
Or maybe, and hear me out here, it wasn't rationalizing but we saw a bad look and no contact between Hurley and the ref. The Big East has hated Hurley's treatment of the refs for years and called it out multiple times. John Gaffney himself despises Dan Hurley and has made him public enemy #1 yet he also said Dan Hurley didn't make contact.Exactly, thanks and much credit for you objectivity. No joke. I am one of the biggest Hurley defenders here, absolutely love the guy, but the rationalizing is off the meter from a few people. Someone showed a screenshot earlier of Hurley in John Gaffney's face and then a GIF of the same thing and there was a post to the effect of "I have watched this several times and I don't see contact.". Really? That's the reaction to that? Whether there was actual contact or not, and I know you believe there was, that's just splitting hairs and trying to sanitize what he did. Hurley was so close to Gaffney anyone would be hard pressed slide a loose strand of hair between the two. The rationalizing for Hurley is like the few PC fans, not the majority, that said Duncan Powell was going for the ball at first but Hopkins leaned into him.
The Big East didn't want this to be a story line that lingered through the weekend and possibly into the BET so they just split the difference and fined him without a suspension and I am okay with that. Tom Crean, the ESPN analyst alluded to that as well. But if the Big East decided to suspend Hurley, like Rob Dauster of Field of 68 thought would happen, there wouldn't be anyone that could reasonably object to that.
I very clearly was not defending Dan Hurley's actions, I simply said I did not see any contact and did not see a suspension coming. And lo and behold that's exactly what happened. Next time just tag me instead of disappearing when you get called out and then coming back and calling me out days later