In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2542
Online now 2177 Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)
The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes
Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes
If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here
Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I thought I would come on the site today and read articles and topics on last nights calls on Sully's technical foul and 2nd foul when players stuck their face in his elbow. I am all for safety, but were these good calls ? IF so do we need a rules change?
The call last night was correct by the letter of the rule. The spirit of the rule, however, iffy at best.
I don't care what they call it it was a makeup call. The ref can't do a replay and call it a charge. Like the announcer said if anything it was a charge and no basket. The only reason the defender got hit by the elbows is because Sully jumped and gravity forces him to come down. The defender didn't jump so he was below sully when sully came down.
The letter of the rule is leading with the elbow... I equate that to on ball defending to clear space or raising the arms above the head to move a guy. Sully had his back to the hoop and just jurned and went straight up. He cant make the hoop without raising his arms... I know they are tasked to call it but discretion should have said othertise IMO
This post was edited by BBucksorBeGone8 2 years ago
He wasnt called for a charge he was assessed a technical. And he hit him on the way up though it looked like the elbow missed him altogether.
The elbow to the face was a poor call. It wasn't called a foul on the floor, therefore I don't know how you can assess one after the fact. As Dan Dakich said last night, it was a basketball move. Sully didn't get one called for a similar play a few possessions later, and in real-time, it was essentially the same play.
I thought the next two fouls were jokes too. The push in the back that never happened; and then the fourth one down at the other end.
Pathetic reffing. (Which reminds me, was that Valentine reffing the Kentucky game?)
..pay forward ........................................he made them pay...............................he'll make them pay again and again
This is a newer rule as a matter of fact.
I am an official. And I have been in games where this has had to have been administered. Whether it is a "basketball move" or not, the safety of the players is first and foremost. The one grey area I have with this rule is, like in Sullinger's case, is does the play in question "fit the game." So in other words, if the game last night had been a highly contested, physical, heated game, then absolutely the call last night would be a no-brainer.
However, within the context of last night's game, in my opinion it didn't fit. But the rule is in place for a reason...especially to stop and/or prevent retaliation-type situations.
Because it is in the rules. All elbow-contact plays where contact occurs above the shoulders of another player are and/or can be reviewed.
It's a point of emphasis this year. Doesn't matter if its accidental or not, its an automatic flagrant.
If you want to split hairs you can justify the call. Its one of those callls that requires someone to judge one way or the other and the reff choose one way. Technical foul? No way. How do you show intent? They are playing through. I cannot tell you how many pairs of glasses I've had busted on my face playing ball by an elbow and it was purely accidental. Incidental contact underneath the rim is expected. You cannot have perfect body control because guys are trying to occupy the same space.
I think we are focusing on the wrong thing. The problem wasn't the elbow call. The problem is Teddy f*$%ing Valentine and his crew. Hightower too. Cannot stand them. They are inconsistant and they don't do their jobs. It makes me want to become a reff because if dipshits like this get to be reffs at a top collegiate level then obviously anyone can.
"The only thing That Team Up North will be tasting this year is the salty tears of defeat" - UFM
My point exactly, it was exactly within the letter of the rule for them to review and assess a flagrant one. Whether they should have called it is an entirely different, "spirit of the rule" discussion. Time and score sometimes has to dictate what you call and what you don't.
It was clearly not intentional and in the act of playing so should NOT have been called. The Big Ten needs to get officiating under control b/c it has been bad at best this year.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports