https://twitter.com/gottliebshow/sta...71507820032000
Looks like Stans is still getting shafted by the refs. I would?ve lost my s**t if I had been the coach.
Printable View
https://twitter.com/gottliebshow/sta...71507820032000
Looks like Stans is still getting shafted by the refs. I would?ve lost my s**t if I had been the coach.
Stans probabaly started seeing blue uniforms with Kentucky on them after that, wow.
Uh looks like they got it right. The guy had his feet planted.
He did get his feet planted. You didn’t watch long enough and Brando confused you talking about a charge. It took me a while to figure it out too. They called that a block and it sent Whisky to the line with no time left.Quote:
Originally Posted by mparkerfd20
No. They called it a charge. The initial call was a block on the guy in white (Wisconsin), but they overturned it somehow and called it a charge on the guy in red (WK). Regardless of what it was, not sure how you change that call. It's not reviewable and the ref who called the block was standing right by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
I think this might actually be right. Seems very odd to call a block on the player who initiated the contact, but I'm not positive a charge/offensive foul is in play in an in-bounds situation like this.
They actually called it a block on the WKU player. Difference is that the block gave Wisconsin free throws, while a charge would not have. As I said in my previous post, it looks like it should have been a charge, but a charge call may not have been on the table in that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Ok. I was wondering why Wisconsin got free throws on a player control foul (charge). I've never seen a "block" called on a defensive player for running through a screen. What is that normally called?Quote:
Originally Posted by thf24
Right. I've never seen a charge called on a defensive player, so it's not a charge, but is it called a block when a defender runs through a screen?Quote:
Originally Posted by thf24