Right. And that's why I'm okay with it being an ejection because you can't be doing that in the nuts area, that's just not cool. But I don't think the NW guy was thinking "I'm gonna elbow him in the nuts, that'll show him".
BTN: "I do think that's a basketball move."
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
He’s a sneaky little bastard. Very good player. I think we wore him down a little.
I think he lost his mind a little bit. Probably frustrated
3 Northwestern players were flagrantly using their elbow to clear out with the ball and NOT ONCE was it called; that was crazy to me
He was cradling the ball with 1 arm and purposely removed his other hand from the ball and swung his arm directly into JMike.
This isn’t what I would call “simply trying to clear out”.
If he kept two hands on the ball I would agree but the second he took his 1 hand off and swung his arm out it out it changes things.
Yup. This really shouldn't be debatable the second he takes his hand off the ball to throw the elbow it changes everything
Amazing some guys, actually 1 does not know the difference between a.push off and a strike. Comical.
F1 isn’t even an option for this hit to the nuts actually.
Refs got this one right.
He did - he sat right in front of me in 102 tonight! He looked at me and said, "I think he got em in the nuts!"
And didn’t someone say that bieu threw an obvious elbow as well?!?
Throw that in with the other two and put it out there!!
it's like a guy using his left arm to push off on a shot or a guy who uses his elbow to hook going for a shot in the lane. Those are common fouls...so I am NOT saying what the kid did was one. That is why I say F1. It's a sub above the common push off or hook.
As for your other post..Thanks. I will want to see why they say it is the only choice. Where the rule actually says that. (again I am not debating what you posted wasn't true just that I'd like to see why the refs said that).
I like the comic approach but I still disagree. There are plenty of methods to create space. I NEVER said it wasn't an overly aggressive move.You are NUTS !
When you want to clear out to make space you extend an arm and push off. That's not what he did. It was a STRIKE with his elbow, not a push off.
It looked on the replay like he was definitely trying to swing his elbow back quick and hard to clear room. You're right, taking his hand off the ball is the give-away for intent. Whether he was aiming for the nuts or just got lucky, I don't know. But it doesn't matter. Right call.
He’s regularly atrocious and probably extra salty we beat Wisconsin this weekend. Not sure how anyone who has played basketball at any level thinks it’s a basketball move to take your hand off the ball while trapped to clear out space with your elbow
OK. Here are the rules and the decisions the refs needed to make:
Rule 10, Sec 1, Art 15.
Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul;
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-18.7 is a flagrant 2 foul; or
c. Occurs above or below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.
Rule 4, Sec 15, Art 2, Paragraph c.1
Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature (unwarranted or too much)and/or unnecessary (avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play), but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f) 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);
Rule 4, Sec 15, Art 2, Paragraph c.2
Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing),while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:
a)
b)
c)
d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental;
Rule 4, Sec 18, Art 7
The following shall be considered not only excessive, but extreme swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.
The first decision the ref has to make is whether it was a foul. The ref called a foul on the floor as per rule 10-1.15: There was illegal contact caused by swinging the elbows.
The second decision the ref has to make is whether the foul was a flagrant foul. Per rule 4-15.2.c.1.f, the refs determined the contact caused by swinging the elbow was excessive as defined in rule 4-18.7. Because he cradled the ball in one hand and swung the other elbow, the movement of the elbow was not part of total body movement (the speed of the elbow exceeded that of the rest of the body).
Once determining the foul was flagrant, the next decision is whether it is flagrant 1 or 2. And this all comes down to whether he made contact to the groin. The refs had already decided the contact was not accidental; the swinging of the elbows was not incidental to his body movement. So once they see that the contact was to the groin they have to call a flagrant 2 foul as per rule 4-15.2.c.2.d.
If the contact was to the chest, it is probably a flagrant 1. But by rule, contact to the groin is automatically a flagrant 2.
That doesn't mean Langborg is a dirty player. His move wasn't a Herb Pope or Xavier Johnson ball grab. But he hit Davis in the groin, so it is an F2.
The NW player was double teamed against the sideline. To evade a trap, you DO NOT put the ball in one hand like you are a football running back, and then extend the free arm and elbow to the opponents’ groin.
You want two hands on the ball to make a pass, to protect the ball.
That nut shot was intentional and malicious.
It’s still a flagrant 2. You don’t elbow an opponent in the nuts. What is so hard to understand?
Great breakdown.
Someone should get this on Twitter for all the Northwestern people whining that this wasn’t a Flagrant 2 and all the so called professionals trying to say this was a basketball move.
you could have stopped with the red highlighted part. Most of this is clear as mud but that part clearly spells it out. Nice job. Thanks.
As @S_Janowski had posted the refs obviously didn't have any choice.
So now for me it is just a matter of agreeing with the rule. I don't and think intent has a play BUT that is worth little and can't argue with the call now as the rules clearly exist.
Didn't have to go that far but thanks for the info. Always nice to learn facts.
I also have a better understanding of WTF it takes 10 mins for the refs to review and make a decision lol trying to implement these things.
Well it took the refs 5 minutes to figure out so….
Now after the fact the post above from sjanowski quoting the rules makes it clear that it was flagrant 2 per the rules.
But it’s doubtful that the average fan (like me and presumably you) knew the exact language of the rules at the time it occurred. You can say you knew but I’m gonna call bs
Brad Davison has entered the chat.
Cool 94!
Yeah, these refs take a very, very long time in these reviews.
And I guess I am an above average fan because I knew the rule. My wife is dumbfounded with how much I know about college basketball and football. Comes from a lot of coaching I have done.
Thanks for the compliment! Lolol.
Go Knights!
Kudos if you did
But the refs didn’t automatically know
And the “basketball play” commentator - who is PAYED to comment and INFORM the viewers - clearly did not .
At least the refs EVENTUALLY got it right
Wonder if anyone informed the “professional” commentator that he was very very wrong
Yeah, that commentator sucked. I turned the volume off for a good 20 minutes cause he was pissing me off with his NW favoritism.
