Watch Duke Superstar Celeste Taylor Get Leveled & Injure Shoulder

[sun]

Coco has posted at least three times in this thread.

you see posts with the same attention to detail that you watch basketball games

What post #'s are those?
I've checked over & over and can't find any CocoHusky screen name that has posted in this thread.
What's their current screen name and post #'s?
Why the mystery?
Why not simply answer the question about the post #'s?
Did they change their screen name to one that they don't want to use for reference?

 

[CocoHusky]

Maybe these board features are causing some of OP's ...er, confusion -

This same thought occurred to me:Maybe @sun has me on ignore. If that's the case I should be thanking him or her.

 

[sun]

Maybe these board features are causing some of OP's ...er, confusion -

Thanks for the info.
I haven't ignored anyone.
I'm missing posts #'s 5, 7, & 12.
I can't acknowledge info. from posts that I can't view.
Maybe they contain credible info., maybe they don't.
AFAIK Taylor was not given a verbal offer by UConn which was known from the beginning.
The reasons why are the issue.

 

[sun]

Maybe these board features are causing some of OP's ...er, confusion -

I'm also missing Post #44.

 

[Alydar]

Is it poor judgement to play hard? She was chasing the ball. Obviously, she thought she could get to it. I don't see the comparison to reckless driving. I think you are reaching.

When you seriously injure another player while taking a big risk trying to make a play you are as responsible as if you had stolen the ball clean and gotten applauded. To my eye Taylor was not running. The other player was sprinting. I don't think there was any intent to injure but there was a disregard of the consequences of sprinting into another player. It was her aggressive play that caused the collision.

 

[the Q]

That’s a common foul. Period.

She plays the ball. The players collide going for the ball.

It happens.

The intensity of the collision is completely irrelevant. Using that logic stepping on a defenders foot and tearing an acl should have the defender ejected

 

[LwrcasefaN]

When you seriously injure another player while taking a big risk trying to make a play you are as responsible as if you had stolen the ball clean and gotten applauded. To my eye Taylor was not running. The other player was sprinting. I don't think there was any intent to injure but there was a disregard of the consequences of sprinting into another player. It was her aggressive play that caused the collision.

It was fair play on a ball (loose) in the air. It couldn't have been more than parts of a second between both players touching the ball... a 50/50 ball. They didn't even hit square on so I have a different view of what...sprinting INTO means. Rice made a play on the ball. She didn't tackle her and then try and get the ball. And since when is the standard for playing or running hard dependent on what some other player is doing? Why does it matter if Taylor was running or not? Aggressive play is part of basketball. Collisions happen and sometimes players get injured. That's just part of the game. If the intent of the aggressive play was to intentionally injure another player...that would be different. But, you don't mouth...."Oh my God" if you intend to hurt someone. Can we talk about how bad of a decision it was to pass her the ball? It's like a QB throwing high over the middle to his receiver.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I'm also missing Post #44.

At this pace...you're going to be missing all the posts except your own. I'm just saying.

 

[Alydar]

It was fair play on a ball (loose) in the air. It couldn't have been more than parts of a second between both players touching the ball... a 50/50 ball. They didn't even hit square on so I have a different view of what...sprinting INTO means. Rice made a play on the ball. She didn't tackle her and then try and get the ball. And since when is the standard for playing or running hard dependent on what some other player is doing? Why does it matter if Taylor was running or not? Aggressive play is part of basketball. Collisions happen and sometimes players get injured. That's just part of the game. If the intent of the aggressive play was to intentionally injure another player...that would be different. But, you don't mouth...."Oh my God" if you intend to hurt someone. Can we talk about how bad of a decision it was to pass her the ball? It's like a QB throwing high over the middle to his receiver.

This wasn't football. And intent may factor into what sort of foul was committed but not the fact that it was a foul. Just because the ball was in the air doesn't make running into another player legal. I saw the replay 6 times. The defender ran into the other player while trying to intercept a pass. Good try but since you not only hit the other player from behind, it was a hard foul to an extreme.

I understand that some contact of 2 players going for a loose ball is allowed, but only to a degree. I've seen UConn players called for fouls on contact a lot less violent that this example. This was a case of one player running at full speed into another player's back. That she says she was "going for the ball" doesn't excuse what she actually did which was to run into an opponent (from behind) in a reckless manner. Like I said, if she didn't bowl over the other player and got the ball cleanly it would have been a highlight. The margin between hero and goat is narrow.

 

[cancontent]

It was fair play on a ball (loose) in the air. It couldn't have been more than parts of a second between both players touching the ball... a 50/50 ball. They didn't even hit square on so I have a different view of what...sprinting INTO means. Rice made a play on the ball. She didn't tackle her and then try and get the ball. And since when is the standard for playing or running hard dependent on what some other player is doing? Why does it matter if Taylor was running or not? Aggressive play is part of basketball. Collisions happen and sometimes players get injured. That's just part of the game. If the intent of the aggressive play was to intentionally injure another player...that would be different. But, you don't mouth...."Oh my God" if you intend to hurt someone. Can we talk about how bad of a decision it was to pass her the ball? It's like a QB throwing high over the middle to his receiver.

This wasn't football. And intent may factor into what sort of foul was committed but not the fact that it was a foul. Just because the ball was in the air doesn't make running into another player legal. I saw the replay 6 times. The defender ran into the other player try to intercept a pass. Good try but since you not only hit the other player from behind, it was a hard foul to an extreme.

I understand that some contact of 2 players going for a loose ball is allowed, but only to a degree. I've seen UConn players called for fouls on contact a lot less violent that this example. This was a case of one player running at full speed into another player's back. That she says she was "going for the ball" doesn't excuse what she actually did which was to run into an opponent (from behind) in a reckless manner. Like I said, if she didn't bowl over the other player and got the ball cleanly it would have been a highlight. The margin between hero and goat is narrow.

I think the football example makes sense to an extent, because location of a pass is important too. We hear coaches and commentators talk about the importance of where a pass is. I don't think lwrcaseFaN is saying that a bad pass validates the aggressiveness. The way I took it is that the location of the pass could have put Taylor in a less exposed position to that hit or possibly in a position where she could have seen the defender sooner.

If a QB puts the pass in a location where the receiver has to jump or stretch out, they're vulnerable for a hard hit from a defender. This could be the same with an inbounder not putting the pass in a location where their team mate can catch it cleanly and make a play. It's still a very narrow margin in this case, but the location of a pass can make a huge difference on a play.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

This wasn't football. And intent may factor into what sort of foul was committed but not the fact that it was a foul. Just because the ball was in the air doesn't make running into another player legal. I saw the replay 6 times. The defender ran into the other player try to intercept a pass. Good try but since you not only hit the other player from behind, it was a hard foul to an extreme.

I understand that some contact of 2 players going for a loose ball is allowed, but only to a degree. I've seen UConn players called for fouls on contact a lot less violent that this example. This was a case of one player running at full speed into another player's back. That she says she was "going for the ball" doesn't excuse what she actually did which was to run into an opponent (from behind) in a reckless manner. Like I said, if she didn't bowl over the other player and got the ball cleanly it would have been a highlight. The margin between hero and goat is narrow.

What makes it 100% legal...injury sustained or not...by BASKETBALL rule is a ...PLAY ON THE BALL. Period. Maybe you should watch it a seventh time. She did not make contact to the back of Celeste. In fact, she was inside of Celeste. NOWHERE in that video does Rice make contact with the back of Celeste. Follow the zero on her back. It's not even close...and it didn't happen. The point of contact is the neck area of Rice and the right arm of Celeste. For me...whether she was successful in stealing the ball or ending up in contact with another player isn't about being a hero or villain. She made a basketball play...and she fouled Celeste in the attempt. Two shots and move on. There was NOTHING malicious or flagrant...despite the outcome. What's your understanding of an individual player's responsibility in going for loose balls? My understanding is...go hard and get there first. Here's the irony for me in all of this. I can go find plenty of examples of offensive players bowling over defenders, causing injuries, yet...no one even thinks of telling them to slow down or be less aggressive because someone might get hurt. And in these cases...aggression is rewarded and the defender collects a foul. Sophie Cunningham and Chelsea Dungey come to mind. I haven't run over that much roadkill.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I think the football example makes sense to an extent, because location of a pass is important too. We hear coaches and commentators talk about the importance of where a pass is. I don't think lwrcaseFaN is saying that a bad pass validates the aggressiveness. The way I took it is that the location of the pass could have put Taylor in a less exposed position to that hit or possibly in a position where she could have seen the defender sooner.

If a QB puts the pass in a location where the receiver has to jump or stretch out, they're vulnerable for a hard hit from a defender. This could be the same with an inbounder not putting the pass in a location where their team mate can catch it cleanly and make a play. It's still a very narrow margin in this case, but the location of a pass can make a huge difference on a play.

Exactly. I think being off balance and the actual fall is what created the injury. If she had run over her...I would agree that it was unnecessary contact and flagrant. You can tell that Rice made contact with the ball because where does it go after the contact? In the direction Rice was headed.