I can't remember the last time I saw this many guys knocked down and out of the air with no calls.
Whoever can be the most physical wins.
Whoever can be the most physical wins.
Defense wins championshipsThere were 48 fouls called in the Arkansas Kansas game!
There were 48 fouls called in the Arkansas Kansas game!
Why are players allowed to "back down" an opponent? If you hit a guy hard enough to knock him backwards, why isn't that charging? A player is getting physically removed from his spot.
Making that a charge would clean up a lot of physical play.
Yes I did. Garza had other options in his arsenal.I don’t disagree, but did you want that called when Garza was consistently using that tactic.
Yes I did. Garza had other options in his arsenal.
That's what I would like to see. Teams make adjustments to the rules, rather than play bullyball. " They can't call all the fouls" has taken over basketball. Basketball was meant to be quickness and finesse and not hockey on hardwood.He did, but he used it often and would have been in foul trouble constantly. Now, that being said I am sure he would have adjusted just like those using it now would adjust if it was called a foul.
Garza's strength was establishing his position early. Most of the contact was by the defender pushing back against his position. He'd have drawn a lot more fouls in your scenario if they were calling all the contact...I don’t disagree, but did you want that called when Garza was consistently using that tactic.
Garza's strength was establishing his position early. Most of the contact was by the defender pushing back against his position. He'd have drawn a lot more fouls in your scenario if they were calling all the contact...
A few, but I think he'd have fouled out a lot of guys until they adjusted to the calls. And frankly, given his arsenal of offensive moves, I don't see him being the loser in more stringent officiating. He had so much game on the block, mid range, and deep, he'd have been one of the last people to suffer from better officiated games.Probably true, but he would also have been called for more fouls.
A few, but I think he'd have fouled out a lot of guys until they adjusted to the calls. And frankly, given his arsenal of offensive moves, I don't see him being the loser in more stringent officiating. He had so much game on the block, mid range, and deep, he'd have been one of the last people to suffer from better officiated games.
Not necessarily. There's been a lot of discussion about the emphasis on determining the difference between block/charges and incidental contact (i.e. playing on).This thread reminds me of something I have noticed.
Player 1 with the ball runs into Player 2 - there is contact. Player 2 falls backwards to the floor.
No call.
Doesn't it almost HAVE to be a block, a charge or a flop?
Fair enough. But when Player 2 falls to the floor, and the contact is considered incidental, isn't that a flop?Not necessarily. There's been a lot of discussion about the emphasis on determining the difference between block/charges and incidental contact (i.e. playing on).
So when you see something like this happen, it could possibly be because the ref deemed it to be incidental contact and not worthy of a foul either way.
Again, more than likely not (or not necessarily), especially if the contact is deemed incidental. If a player falls back in an unnatural-looking motion compared to the contact observed, that's where you could get a flop call.Fair enough. But when Player 2 falls to the floor, and the contact is considered incidental, isn't that a flop?
I don't like the new rule. I think officials are hesitant to call technical fouls on players. The penalty is too harsh IMO.