Wolf's Flagrant

[BoatShow]

Was the absolute worst call I've ever seen. It's a no call until he gets hip-checked up the court? What is that? Can the refs even consider that play while reviewing?

Oh, and the 3 or 4 missed goaltends.

Sorry about the ref rant, but that was some specialist stuff tonight.

 

[sledog]

Just getting in from the game. You are correct. The refs handed StJ (under the circumstances) the game via very bad calls. I was looking at Wolfie during that encounter and don't know why the ref didn't T the StJ player!

 

[Husky]

Happens every time we play in New York , rough night.....this will only make the team stronger

 

[Gurleyman]

What Wolf did was a basketball play. You're supposed to "chin the rebound" with your elbows out as you look for outlets.

If you want to get your head in there reaching in around a seven-footer's rebound who has the ball secured, you deserve an elbow.

The retaliation was clearly not a basketball play.

 

[CL82]

What Wolf did was a basketball play. You're supposed to "chin the rebound" with your elbows out as you look for outlets.

If you want to get your head in there reaching in around a seven-footer's rebound who has the ball secured, you deserve an elbow.

The retaliation was clearly not a basketball play.

This.

 

[mauconnfan]

It's amazing they make a call on a flagrant push at half court and then need to go back to review the play. But I was certain after the review they would, as basketball officials, see he has the full right to bring his arms up to protect the rebound without swinging or intent of contact...........that was a downright disgraceful call by the referees in a game where the whole crew was once again pitiful!!! The league should be embarrassed these guys put on those stripes!! Then standing right behind the catch by Harrison where he caught it at the hash and somehow got to the three point line w/o a dribble? Hey UConn lost the game once again with a terrible display of basketball and questionable effort in the first half, but the ref's were just atrocious!

 

[Migs]

What Wolf did was a basketball play. You're supposed to "chin the rebound" with your elbows out as you look for outlets.

If you want to get your head in there reaching in around a seven-footer's rebound who has the ball secured, you deserve an elbow.

The retaliation was clearly not a basketball play.

Sampson was reaching in on the rebound, a foul called probably >50% of the it's committed. But if the graphic they put up was from the rule book, then contact between the head and elbow results in a flagrant for the elbow's owner. The refs should have determined the elbow was unintentional, but in their infinite wisdom deduced the retaliation wouldn't have happened without the elbow. crowd pleasing officiating the refs are going to get away with until Ollie gets himself some pinstripe respect.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CTGoonie]

Nice lesson for the kids there. If you get elbowed and don't like it just go ahead and commit a flagrant foul. The refs will then go back and make things right for you. Just a horrible call.

 

[willie99]

that used to be how basketball was played, you can swing your elbows to protect the ball and using your elbows in a normal function like holding the ball over your head was legal

now, even if you're doing something totally legal and natural, if that elbow connects with a head it's an automatic flagrant 1

it's basketball's version of some bad football rules

 

[businesslawyer]

that used to be how basketball was played, you can swing your elbows to protect the ball and using your elbows in a normal function like holding the ball over your head was legal

now, even if you're doing something totally legal and natural, if that elbow connects with a head it's an automatic flagrant 1

it's basketball's version of some bad football rules

Refs got it right. You can argue whether what Wolfe did should be a reviewable, flagrant foul, but under the rules it is.

 

[UConn76]

Agree with all comments that the elbowing call was ridiculous. Was a basketball play and clearly not intentional. On the other hand, the retaliatory push was obviously intentional.
Goal tending calls are ususally tough to make although with my Husky glasses on, I thought we deserved to get 1-2 of those calls.

 

[Gurleyman]

Refs got it right. You can argue whether what Wolfe did should be a reviewable, flagrant foul, but under the rules it is.

I haven't read the rule, and you may be right, since I know it is written pretty strictly, but i thought there is a smidgen of latitude for elbows that happen within the normal flow of a game. Sometimes a guy swooping in for a layup or a block will hit a guy with an elbow on the way down or follow through without even being aware of his presence.

Now, Wolf may have just barely turned enough with his elbows out for the refs to feel like they had no choice, but clearly he was protecting the ball while looking for an oultet pass and the tricky thing with elbows are that you can't remove them from your arms. And there is really no other fundamental way to do what he did. If he holds the ball down around his waist, he can't outlet quickly. If he bear hugs it, he can't throw it all. And if he holds it out with both hands without having his elbows out, he will immediately get it stolen, or get a held ball.

The St. John's player could have really been ejected as well. That was a premeditated flagrant outside of the flow of the game and could have been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to injure.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Refs got it right. You can argue whether what Wolfe did should be a reviewable, flagrant foul, but under the rules it is.

I agree. Not sure if it was the same guy but Wolfe seemed to catch someone in the chin about 5 minutes before the incident. The rule isn't great but it was properly called and its designed to protect. Also bottom line both players made 1 and UConn got the ball back so entire thing was essentially a non-event.

Other referee-ing was bad, but obviously not why UConn lost the game.

 

[CL82]

I guess this is like a hand ball in soccer. I once had a trainer scream at a ref "Did the hand touch the ball or did the ball touch the hand." (<-Better if done in a Brit accent.) It doesn't matter under the rules but his point was ref should have used discretion on the call. I think the same applies here. Wolf wasn't clearing anyone out. For what it is worth the Johny's action would have been a flagrant 2 according the graphic if the play was dead and St John's kid would have been thrown out. Well in this case it was still a live ball but it was behind the play. Why should that be any different?

 

[businesslawyer]

I guess this is like a hand ball in soccer. I once had a trainer scream at a ref "Did the hand touch the ball or did the ball touch the hand." (<-Better if done in a Brit accent.) It doesn't matter under the rules but his point was ref should have used discretion on the call. I think the same applies here. Wolf wasn't clearing anyone out. For what it is worth the Johny's action would have been a flagrant 2 according the graphic if the play was dead and St John's kid would have been thrown out. Well in this case it was still a live ball but it was behind the play. Why should that be any different?

In each case, you are arguing about what the rules should be rather than what they are.

 

[Huskybass]

The refs cannot let play continue, then observe a foul and then go back and review a prior play. Once the non call was made it should have stood. Just a piss poor job by the refs last night.

 

[CL82]

In each case, you are arguing about what the rules should be rather than what they are.

Don't disagree Biz, but if basketball were called according to the rules, it would be one continuous stoppage in play. The refs exercise discretion all game long and this is one of those times that should have done that and had a no call on Wolf. IMO

 

[upstater]

Reading the rules they posted, I thought Sampson deserved a flagrant 2.

 

[businesslawyer]

Don't disagree Biz, but if basketball were called according to the rules, it would be one continuous stoppage in play. The refs exercise discretion all game long and this is one of those times that should have done that and had a no call on Wolf. IMO

The refs have been told that they are not to ignore the elbows. That is in line with it being determined to be a flagrant foul and them being told that they are to go to the video to see if they missed it.

It seemed silly that an intentional cheap shot (albeit not a hard one) and an elbow to a guy's head that didn't clear out were treated the same way but each of them individually was the correct call.

 

[HooperScooper]

What Wolf did was a basketball play. You're supposed to "chin the rebound" with your elbows out as you look for outlets.

If you want to get your head in there reaching in around a seven-footer's rebound who has the ball secured, you deserve an elbow.

The retaliation was clearly not a basketball play.

That's exactly what I said when I saw the play. Isn't that what they teach you to do? Why was that flagrant?

 

[geordi]

The problem with most sports today is that there are too many rules. If you are going to take away the rebounder's ability to secure the ball and allow everyone else to be reaching in to take it way, why not just start a scrum and be done with it. We could call it rugby.

 

[art4life]

Agree with all comments that the elbowing call was ridiculous. Was a basketball play and clearly not intentional. On the other hand, the retaliatory push was obviously intentional.
Goal tending calls are ususally tough to make although with my Husky glasses on, I thought we deserved to get 1-2 of those calls.

Wolf's elbowing was incidental at best.
Sampson couldn't move outta the way b/c the other Johnnie was right next to him & Wolf.

Reading the rules they posted, I thought Sampson deserved a flagrant 2.

I agree - since Wolf got Flagrant 1 , then Sampson should have gotten a Flagrant 2...

 

[OkaForPrez]

The biggest problem with the whole scenario was it temporarily gave sju time to regroup as we were storming back in a game where they burned up all their timeouts.

 

[Catsailor]

The biggest problem with the whole scenario was it temporarily gave sju time to regroup as we were storming back in a game where they burned up all their timeouts.

Exactly right

 

[TXHuskyFan]

The refs cannot let play continue, then observe a foul and then go back and review a prior play. Once the non call was made it should have stood. Just a piss poor job by the refs last night.

That was my big question. Yes, I agree that the elbow is a Flagrant 1 by the rule. Like it or not, that is the current rule. I know the refs can go the monitor to see if a foul was a flagrant 1 or a flagrant 2, but the point is, there was no foul called so there was nothing to review. You cannot back and review if a foul was committed. The only thing that was reviewable was whether the St. Johns foul was a flagrant foul. If the St. John's player does not attack Wolfe, they cannot go back and review the entire sequence since the last time out to see if they missed something. Nothing before the foul committed by St. John's on Wolfe should have been reviewable.

Its also hard to believe that the fouls carried the same penalty. One was clearly an incidental Flagrant 1, the other was a clear act of agression outside of the realm of basketball play, similar to throwing a punch. At a minimum, the call on St. John's should have been a technical and we should have gotten to choose the free throw shooter, but I guess thats an argument for the rules committee.