First Four First Night Thread
- Thread starter Plum Street
- Start date
Based on what I see tonight, Maldonado would not fit in on a Pike team.
Indiana- Texas A&M would have a better matchup
Why are cheerleaders still wearing masks?
Why are cheerleaders still wearing masks?
As a team yes. But as two people no. They only have Ike and Mal. This would’ve been what our team would look like if not for the development of cliff and Paul.
Been watching their games for weeks and they would have been better off in the NIT
A bit of both. Commentators noted earlier that it felt like IU was winning by more than it actually was, but Wyoming was still very close. IU seemed unable to pull away for a bit & are making dumb fouls allowing the Cowboys to extend the game.
Watching the studio & it seems the audio is a half a sec behind video. Rex looks like he's lipsynching
Probably just means you don’t watch a lot of basketball.
For what it’s worth I believe one of your fans posted a picture of that foul in the Iowa game. One player had put on the brakes and was actually pulling backwards & at the very least perfectly vertical and the other player was leaning into him it’s all in the picture. Same thing with this foul in the Wyoming game. It looked like relatively incidental contact and the Wyoming guy threw a big clearing elbow, until you watched it on replay and that’s why they do “that”… to get it right. I thought they explained it well in the Wyoming Indiana game!
Trust me JordanKap watches every basketball game lol. It’s just not called a lot, one of those rules people have to look twice at.
You mean like every travel, every foul, ad nauseam isn’t called as much as it could be…
Kind of like holding in football? Is that what you mean?
Sure I can agree with that but as I replied to him. There is traveling and fouling all throughout every basketball game ever played. What percentage do you think actually get called? I mean for what it’s worth that’s the whole entire problem, it’s arbitrary and inconsistent…
and besides the fact, having to look at the rule “twice“ doesn’t make it not a foul. Look I don’t watch near as much sports as I used to and I’ve seen that called a number of times over the last couple years… I’m not even gonna say I like the rule per se, but that is how it reads and it IS a cylinder foul.
I probably take more umbrage with the people who refused to give it up after knowing the rule. I mean hell you’ve surely seen the picture? Murray put on the brakes and was at the very least squatted & straight up and down and Harper was leaning into him… I hate the rule but you can’t say he wasn’t in his cylinder!
Last edited:
That was the first time I’ve seen it called in a game not involving Rutgers. Not really sure why we are nitpicking here. This is a thread about the first 4 games. We know the rule exists, it’s a very seldom used call. I’m not even sure we are still talking about Iowa. That game is over, it happened, haven’t we all moved on?
My issue is more with the rule book - I have an issue with using a replay to overturn and re-assign a personal foul call to Team B while reviewing the personal foul called and replay for a Flagrant from Team A. Not sure but I don't think replays are used in any other way to reverse or re-assign Personal Fouls in NCAA Basketball.
The difference in the 2 plays is Murray ran into Harper and initiated contact. Harper didn't invade Murray's cylinder he simply got good position and beat Murray to the spot. He held his ground and cut off Murray's drive. Then Murray swung through and clipped Ron. This is not the intent of the cylinder rule
Race on the other hand ran into the Wyoming player who was standing still and invaded his cylinder. This is the intent of the cylinder rule
Race on the other hand ran into the Wyoming player who was standing still and invaded his cylinder. This is the intent of the cylinder rule
Agree. I'm fine with them looking at it to determine whether it was flagrant or not. I'm probably even fine with them saying it was or wasn't an offensive foul (eliminating a call made on the floor). I don't think they should be making calls after video review that were never made on the floor (calling the defensive foul).
The reversal is only allowed for cylinder and hook-and-hold (at least right now).
No I don’t think so, but I have seen this scenario at least 5 times in different games and 3 in the last 10 days.
I agree with this…the complete “Foul” reversal is strange. But it is probably a difficult thing to handle without “punishing” someone.
In my mind no foul give the ball to Iowa out of bounds. But they'd likely go “jump” ball and that isn’t right either.
The cold harsh reality is this, if it’s a play on, no 2nd foul for Keegan, which lets be candid, is the “only” potentially momentum swinging issue.
If I’m a rival fan, my hope is “2nd foul” on other teams best player & clearly by the rule that’s not what it was.
If you watch the replay you’ll see that Race hacked the guy across his left arm, so there was no reason to even invoke the cylinder rule (which I hate because it’s open to interpretation, as you noted in the play with Harper and Murray).
It was a good old-fashioned foul by Thompson. Refs like to trot out the cylinder rule to cover for the fact that the ball-handler threw an elbow.
Well yea ideally the ref just calls the initial obvious foul lol
Meh….not a horrendous foul considering how physical that game was, so no, it’s not a foul until the review and I’m just applying cognitive thinking here but…
Im beginning to think they can’t just go “side out” and no foul. And a jump ball wouldn’t be right either?
The review was based on the elbow being thrown which caused Thompson to hit the floor. They apparently wanted to see if the elbow was a flagrant and later justified it based on the cylinder.
But what actually happened was Thompson tried to knock the ball out of Ike’s hands and whacked him across the arm instead. Thompson wasn’t really in a defensive posture he was just trying for a quick steal immediately after the rebound.
So it really wasn’t an illegal cylinder defense, he just swiped at the ball and Ike was having none of it. It was a straight foul across the arm by Thompson, but the refs missed it.
Cylinder was the refs way out of the fact that they missed the hack by Thompson and therefore didn’t want to call a flagrant on Ike for throwing the elbow.
Ok….then it was both. Lots of hacking on arms last night incidentally!
Yeah, the "cylinder" review allows refs to re-adjudicate the entire sequence, as if they were seeing it again for the first time. Don't like that at all. Call what you see - let replay confirm or overturn the call you made. That's it.
If you missed a common foul committed by the defensive player in real time, you shouldn't get to call it with the benefit of slow motion.
The only "new" fouls I'd probably be comfortable with them calling that way would be flagrant fouls. If an offensive player was called for the foul, and they reviewed for cylinder.... then found out the defensive player had also punched him in the groin out of sightline of the refs, then I'd be fine calling that flagrant after review. But calling common fouls you missed on the floor doesn't feel right to me.
ultimately however that’s the same premise… If they didn’t see it they didn’t see it!
But flagrant fouls are almost always assessed after review, not on the floor, so I think I'm okay with that.
I suppose, but all ******** aside I think over the years we would’ve all loved to have poor fouls or penalties reviewed and overturned if it benefited us…?!
And for all intents and purposes just like with the Murray elbow to Harper, at first blush those swinging elbows always look like Fouls. So no I didn’t automatically think the Indiana player horrifically fouled him.