-
Stans/WKy vs Wiscy last night (link)
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.
-
Originally Posted by
mparkerfd20
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.
-
Originally Posted by
Liverpooldawg
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by
confucius say
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.
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.
-
Originally Posted by
thf24
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.
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?
-
Originally Posted by
thf24
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.