The cylinder wasn't the reason given. It was that he tried to go over his head and called it a regular foul. It was a bs call.
Refs cost us at least 4 points
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Don't forget the 2 points for the 'fouled on the floor' on Wahl, that shouldn't have counted.
They tried to cost Iowa yet another point last night, with the And1 opportunity awarded on that ridiculous NBA continuation for Wahl, as well, but he missed the FT and the Hawks rebounded it.
Don't forget the 2 points lost when Sanfort tipped in the missed shot but was charged with questionable foul.
you mean the reason you were told by the tv crew? pretty funny....not surprised that you believe that but by all means explain why it was a BS call?
That's a most interesting play and glad you asked. Already, in the days since our crews have talked at length on the solution. How could that play be handled and we're still not sure there's a solution. So Roger Ayers is the Trail official bringing the ball up in the b/c. R.A. is voted almost every year as the top official in all of the NCAA by the Coaches. The Trail officials primary responsibility is the "on ball" matchup, in this case the ball handler and his primary defender. So he's officiating the defender s movements and cognizant of the sideline as the ball handler gets turned. The Slot official Kipp K who is across the floor is looking to help with any secondary defender/matchup or secondary defender attempting to double team the ball handler and in this case he's at least glancing at that defender and any other off ball activity such as picks away. Remember there are 7 other players in this sequence that must be officiated by the other 2 officials that are not a part of the on ball matchup. So that leaves Larry S as the Lead or the guy on the baseline that the play is coming towards. Lead has full field vision of everything, so he's scanning with his eyes looking for off ball activity as well as picking up that secondary defender that starts to creep into help try and double the ball. Because of Lead's position he also of the 3 crew members has the best view to glance at the game clock on the opposite end of the floor for an idea on what the remaining count is. The player at question is drifting backwards down the sidelines so that would not be a focus glance by any of the crew because he's not doing anything. So what happens and contrary to what most believe. The violation was NOT for reestablishing inbounds as the ball arrives but for being the FIRST to touch when going OOB on his own volition. That player would not be a priority glance. Please understand...when ALL of us and the viewing public look at this play 400 times we can see everything. The crew as I just explained can't see all of that in a last second shot attempt. If that's picked up it would be miraculous because it's just not a priority catch while scanning other potential matchup/collision pts and it's 40plus feet from the Lead official. Does that make sense? The hell of this play is that it is NOT reviewable. This is not a clock issue nor a ball that was deflected OOB that would be reviewed under 2 min. This is for a player that unintentionally drifted OOB while running backwards looking at his teammate in case he were to pass the ball to him which he did. So you basically have 4 players all in a straight line and trying to officiate the importance of each relative to the potential pass/shot/contact. It is nearly impossible in that last second scenario to catch that. Rewatch that ending a couple of times and imagine looking from the baseline at that action and telling yourself that 1 of the many priorities in that instance is the feet of a player not directly involved yet? My guess is that this play will possibly be something that the rules committee over the summer takes into consideration as a further reason for review under 2 min and the game on the line. There is really no punishment. This is not a rule interpretation that the crew flat kicked or a reviewable call incorrectly adjudicated. They just did not see it. It's just one of those plays in sports that happens.
You're coloring the lines. The refs NEVER said it wasn't an F1 because of the cylinder foul. What was offered to RH was that the player in their view was "attempting a pass" and made inadvertent contact. Had they ruled a flagrant the cylinder foul would have been ignored because a flagrant is not a basketball move which is the definition of why the cylinder foul was created. They rule on the hit to the chin first, period. They made the initial call on the floor based on what they saw in the moment. The play is a required review for contact above the shoulders. ...so they don't know precise intent and have to judge based on what they are viewing on video replay and likely intent b) you were given the explanation as to why it was NOT an F1. So since it cannot be an F1 it has to then be judged based on the legality of both players. In this case, the defender is not legal. Call it bullshit, call it what you want. It's the rule. This is a cylinder foul. Now, are you going to walk over and tell Fran that we don't have an F1 only a common because we judged this to be inadvertent and oh by the way since that's the case we now can retract that common foul on the post player because your player Rebraca was guilty of a cylinder foul which essentially says that your player, Fran shouldn't have been there? So a personal foul on Rebraca and a team foul added to the total AND Wis possession? What do guess happens then? Fran gets at least 1 tee and likely another and gets tossed. Instead IF you watch the replay...when LS gets to Fran, Fran is starting to wind up...but as Larry continues you see Fran get still and listen and back off because the outcome was actually a BIG BREAK for IOWA in that moment. Again, I know this is hard to comprehend but the crew has deference to achieve an outcome here based on the rules that is fair to and doesn't piss both Coaches off and it was the correct application. Gard is happy as a lark that his kid didn't get an F1(or F2 with ejection) which would have meant 2 shots and Iowa possession and Fran is happy because the foul is NOT called on Rebraca Wis gets a personal and a team foul added and Iowa gets the ball. So spin that into the bullshit you want but that is EXACTLY what happened and why. You may care what Robbie Hummel or any other talking head has to say, I don't because they don't know WTF they're talking about. But by all means if believing their uninformed attempt makes you feel better, go for it.
Last edited:
OMG, yes this.
No wonder at all that Fran lost his s* after the weak T called on him. IDC what the final foul totals & FTs were, because there were horrifically bad calls at both ends.
Just seemed like more of the really bad ones happened to effect Iowa negatively.
The kid who threw an elbow at Filip should have been called for a flagrant 2 and thrown out of the game. Dirty play.
that was my point, if it was because of the cylinder rule that it wasn’t called an f1 then explain that. The explanation given to hummel didn’t have a dam thing to do with passing, they said because his intention was to swing over top of Rebraca’s head it isn’t an f1. So again ill go back to my previous post, how tf did they know his intention?! And again he swung at his chin twice, which is a pretty good indicator his intention wasn’t to go over Rebracas head
What? Wahl grabbed and pulled Connor’s arm. Classic hook and hold. Those refs were atrocious.
Last edited:
Well, it sounds like the ref said the guy was trying to miss FR, and hit him by mistake. Isn't that the definition of an F1?
Lame as heck.
so understand that I'm every bit if not more of a Hawk fan than you. I don't want the ruling to go against...it's just the way it is...the crew has to determine the best they can if this rises to the level of intentional thus F1. They did not. So then you have to apply what I explained. As an official, you must sequence in order to apply the ruling correctly 1)was this intentional(whether he got him prior to that is irrelevant) 2) now apply the rules accordingly, which in this case gives deference to the crew as I explained... It really doesn't matter what Robbie Hummel said. It's a misunderstanding of the rules interpretation and application on his part. That's all I can tell you.
yea... thats what I saw... he hit Rebraca on this chin with his elbow... but not hard enough... so he swung again and knocked him out.
I just don't like this being a 'common foul'
you have to want it to not be a Flagrant Foul to call that a common foul.
and then of course...
Duke gets the NBA continuation against Iowa.
Iowa does not get the continuation against whoever.
then Wisconsin gets the NBA continuation against Iowa.
there is a problem with officiating.
and the biggest of that is there is no accountability
zero.
the weird thing is... people will talk to players and coaches after the game..
why did you do that... what were you thinking when this happened.
but the refs...
nothing.
are the officials betting on the games they are officiating?
do they have friends and or family betting on the games they are officiating?
I think these are fair questions.
I just don't like this being a 'common foul'
you have to want it to not be a Flagrant Foul to call that a common foul.
and then of course...
Duke gets the NBA continuation against Iowa.
Iowa does not get the continuation against whoever.
then Wisconsin gets the NBA continuation against Iowa.
there is a problem with officiating.
and the biggest of that is there is no accountability
zero.
the weird thing is... people will talk to players and coaches after the game..
why did you do that... what were you thinking when this happened.
but the refs...
nothing.
are the officials betting on the games they are officiating?
do they have friends and or family betting on the games they are officiating?
I think these are fair questions.
No, all hummel did was repeat what he was told from the refs. He wasn’t interpreting or apply any rule, just repeating what he was told. The refs f’d up 1 way or the other. If in fact it’s a cylinder violation as you stated, they made the wrong call. If it wasn’t a cylinder violation then it has to be an f1. Their explanation made no sense. That’s where my issue lies.
I keep seeing certain posters defend refs about how they’re doing the best they can and we shouldn’t complain about officiating…how about that rutgers osu game last week? I bet Rutgers is a little pissed how that turned out! Oh and I believe sciorotto was part of the crew that totally f’d that call up as well.
First elbow to the chin, common foul, okay, Going back in harder with a second elbow to the chin deserved at least a flagrant 1,.. Bad call in my opinion.
The rutgers osu game is exhibit A that there isn’t any accountability. How difficult is it to say the refs made the wrong call. Because it was the last play of the game, Rutgers is awarded the win. Instead, well they got it wrong but sorry Rutgers your just SOL, whoops!
So, I'm still confused.
Here is the definition of an F1-
A flagrant 1 foul (men's) or unsportsmanlike foul (women's) involves excessive or severe contact during a live ball, including especially when a player "swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders".
Now, there is no doubt a more comprehensive definition somewhere.
There is no mention of "intent".
The play in question seems to me (and Robbie Hummel) to be the very definition of an F1.
Not all, but I’d bet my house there are officials making side money by controlling scores. If it has happened in the NBA where the officials are well paid as full time employees, it’s certainly happening in college where officials are working as part time contracted refs.
Wouldn't Garza have fouled out every game if this was called an offensive foul?
The announcer heard the excuse the refs gave. That's why they said the refs explanation was...
You don't get to claim extra width by spreading your legs. Once they get beyond the width of your body the "cylinder" rule doesn't apply.
I didn't see the game so I don't know if the T was justified.
However, when Fran continues to act like this, you guys are not going to get the benefit of the doubt ever and that's probably going to result in some unbalanced officiating. No one to blame but himself.
However, when Fran continues to act like this, you guys are not going to get the benefit of the doubt ever and that's probably going to result in some unbalanced officiating. No one to blame but himself.
Bull. If he leans back like he did he loses his cylinder. That's on him. Filip did what he should have and moved in when 22 pivoted away.
There is a lot of whining going on for a game that was pretty close in the end. A call either way could have and probably did change the outcome, but it happens all the time. The fact is that if Iowa does a better job taking care of the ball and not dribbling into double-teams, they win the game. They didn't so that's it. I am looking forward to a rematch in Madison in February. Hopefully Kris and Ahron are back and at full strength.
my face was far worse than Fran's
we got shafted big time
I fully support Fran... and I wish he would get this upset more often.
he's fighting for his guys
I love it
Similar threads
