THE BIGGEST HOSING IN THE HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL

[Day2]

He was in legal guarding position. Charge

https://www.quickscores.com/downloads/ftmeadesports_20212022_NCAA_Mens_Basketball_Rulebook.pdf

Page 50, article 6.

This part is up for debate:

d. May shift to maintain guarding position in the path of the dribbler, provided that the guard does not charge into the dribbler or otherwise cause contact;

 

[BillSU]

He was in legal guarding position. Charge

https://www.quickscores.com/downloads/ftmeadesports_20212022_NCAA_Mens_Basketball_Rulebook.pdf

Page 50, article 6.

Well, looks like the ranting/venting is complete in this thread. Except for this one.

The game was an obvious, ridiculous and absurd mockery of a refereed basketball game by the three biased ACC Zebras.

But there isn't anything we can do about it which is unfortunate.

I personally would like to line up those three idiots with their heads through a hole in a pillory, and grind oranges into their faces while having them read what a flagrant foul is and have a big sign with the foul totals and another that indicates they should not ever return to Syracuse. They can stay that way through the rest of the season.

 

[Toga]

Well, looks like the ranting/venting is complete in this thread. Except for this one.

The game was an obvious, ridiculous and absurd mockery of a refereed basketball game by the three biased ACC Zebras.

But there isn't anything we can do about it which is unfortunate.

I personally would like to line up those three idiots with their heads through a hole in a pillory, and grind oranges into their faces while having them read what a flagrant foul is and have a big sign with the foul totals and another that indicates they should not ever return to Syracuse. They can stay that way though the rest of the season.

I would also like a dunking stool.

 

[Millhouse]

He was in legal guarding position. Charge

https://www.quickscores.com/downloads/ftmeadesports_20212022_NCAA_Mens_Basketball_Rulebook.pdf

Page 50, article 6.

If you are moving backwards and someone runs faster into you can draw a blocking foul, we should do that everytime. If anyone backpedals, immediately spear them

 

[grepal]

Charge is fine. I wasn’t arguing that while watching.

The flagrant basically ended the game. Call a normal charge and we still have a shot.

Kinda feel like it should just be accepted that sometimes accidents happen in sports. Flagrants should be reserved for when it’s intentional or insanely reckless.(diving into someone’s knee to get the ball, wildly swinging elbows.)

Despite some fans’ frustration with Mintz….I didn’t think he was reckless. He was trying to I still say the phantom 4th on Jesse and the Mintz and one called a charge completely screwed SU over. Maybe we should look into the Big 10 if the Dukes and UNC s of the league have the league and the refs in their pockets. Simply dishonest.

 

[Cuseregular]

He was in legal guarding position. Charge

https://www.quickscores.com/downloads/ftmeadesports_20212022_NCAA_Mens_Basketball_Rulebook.pdf

Page 50, article 6.

Just not getting this, I get the position part in that he was physically in the space in between Mintz and the basket, but both players were literally moving at full out speed on the play. Literally when looking at the whole play. That’s a charge? With the defender literally moving with velocity as the offensive player moves too?

In this case, yes, the offensive player is moving faster than the defender is moving as he slows down, but both are still literally moving in space at that point in time when that play is looked at it’s totality.

If ya take a one second stop look in the middle of the play (any play for that matter), sure one could make that interpretation, but that makes no logical sense to look at a split second moment in time in the middle of an active full run play like that.

I know the rule there says no set time is needed to be there stationary and only one foot need be down while twisting your body away, but is that saying you can also be moving?! I don’t think so, at least it’s not addressed.

In that same rule book, I believe it says that the offensive player has the right to a lane to the basket. This bs lax guarding/charging interpretive rule supersedes that? Just don’t get it.

If so and this is the case, then virtually every single play away from the circle under the basket (and other than if a defender moves forward into a guy or undercuts a player who is already in the air), other than that every single play is a charge. Every single one.

You could do it on every virtually single offensive play to the basket with your defense if this is the case. Wouldn’t that be fun, and horrible. It’ll end up being like the old FourCorners defense that needed to be legislated out or at least corrected.

Like NIL, The portal, etc., Something is gonna need to be done To address this mess. Meanwhile, until it is addressed, somebody tell the coaches and players stop driving in these situations and kick it out to others to shoot, or stop and shoot themselves.

 

[NorSyr66]

We also got down ten in the second half. How do you explain that? The starters at half tied the game in the second half before falling behind by ten.

and your point is?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Just not getting this, I get the position part in that he was physically in the space in between Mintz and the basket, but both players were literally moving at full out speed on the play. Literally when looking at the whole play. That’s a charge? With the defender literally moving with velocity as the offensive player moves too?

In this case, yes, the offensive player is moving faster than the defender is moving, but both are still literally moving in space at that point in time when that play is looked at it’s totality.

If ya take a one second stop look in the middle of the play (any play for that matter), sure one could make that interpretation, but that makes no logical sense to look at a split second moment in time in the middle of an active full run play like that.

I know the rule there says no set time is needed to be there stationary and only one foot need be down while twisting your body away, but is that saying you can also be moving?! I don’t think so, at least it’s not addressed.

In that same rule book, I believe it says that the offensive player has the right to a lane to the basket. This bs lax guarding/charging interpretive rule supersedes that? Just don’t get it.

If so and this is the case, then virtually every single play away from the circle under the basket (and other than if a defender undercuts a player who’s in the air), other than that every single play is a charge. Every single one.

You could do it on every virtually single offensive play to the basket with your defense if this is the case. Wouldn’t that be fun, and horrible. It’ll end up being like the old FourCorners defense that needed to be legislated out or at least corrected.

Like NIL, The portal, etc., Something is gonna need to be done To address this mess. Meanwhile, until it is addressed, somebody tell the coaches and players stop driving in these situations and kick it out to others to shoot, or stop and shoot themselves.

It was a charge. Defender is entitled to his space, even if he was moving backwards.

 

[CousCuse]

Just not getting this, I get the position part in that he was physically in the space in between Mintz and the basket, but both players were literally moving at full out speed on the play. Literally when looking at the whole play. That’s a charge? With the defender literally moving with velocity as the offensive player moves too?

In this case, yes, the offensive player is moving faster than the defender is moving, but both are still literally moving in space at that point in time when that play is looked at it’s totality.

If ya take a one second stop look in the middle of the play (any play for that matter), sure one could make that interpretation, but that makes no logical sense to look at a split second moment in time in the middle of an active full run play like that.

I know the rule there says no set time is needed to be there stationary and only one foot need be down while twisting your body away, but is that saying you can also be moving?! I don’t think so, at least it’s not addressed.

In that same rule book, I believe it says that the offensive player has the right to a lane to the basket. This bs lax guarding/charging interpretive rule supersedes that? Just don’t get it.

If so and this is the case, then virtually every single play away from the circle under the basket (and other than if a defender undercuts a player who’s in the air), other than that every single play is a charge. Every single one.

You could do it on every virtually single offensive play to the basket with your defense if this is the case. Wouldn’t that be fun, and horrible. It’ll end up being like the old FourCorners defense that needed to be legislated out or at least corrected.

Like NIL, The portal, etc., Something is gonna need to be done To address this mess. Meanwhile, until it is addressed, somebody tell the coaches and players stop driving in these situations and kick it out to others to shoot, or stop and shoot themselves.

To balance this myopic point of view as to what the defense is allowed, the Idiocracy that runs the NCAA tried to implement this no flopping call, which is so difficult to tell when it's real or fake that it created another gray area that refs can apply capriciously. The big picture is that fans want to see offensive players have the right to score baskets, not have a defensive kabuki dance with the defender riding the offensive player around. I keep seeing games pop up with final scores in the 30's and low 40's. Coaches are going to go in that direction if this is how the rules are interpreted by refs, who wants that?

 

[gmoney44]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we're carpetbaggers in the acc... That means bad calls on your home court vs. tobacco road blue blood teams when the game is on the line... And when u pepper in stupid end of game play from our own team... Guaranteed loss.

This league is a POS for teams like us.

This is nothing new. I despise this league.

Yup. I’d rather be rich in the Big10 and getting jobed against Ohio St and Michigan. At least we could battle the rest of the conference for 3rd.

 

[Consigliere]

It was a charge. Defender is entitled to his space, even if he was moving backwards.

Can be moving backwards, but watching Davis’s right foot as Mintz started his crossover I thought it was clear that he was also moving laterally. Is that allowed if he can’t get to the spot and establish position prior to contact?

 

[Cuseregular]

Can be moving backwards, but watching Davis’s right foot as Mintz started his crossover I thought it was clear that he was also moving laterally. Is that allowed if he can’t get to the spot and establish position prior to contact?

yes still a charge according to what Sean posted.

Everything's a charge short of undercutting a guy already in the air, in the circle underneath or if the defender moves forward into the other guy.

In fact the defender only needs to be in front of a guy for a millisecond, feet don't need be fully planted, doesn't need to be "set" for any prescribed time at all, body can be turned away, only on one foot, moving backward etc. is how I'm reading it, definitely different from my old days reffing back in the day (way back).

Now, It's all a charge short of the above circumstances. Coaches players on our team please take note!

 

[SUMJF]

Without reading this thread if the answer hasn’t be said Brandon Triche “charge” against Michigan in 2013 or the entire Ohio State game from 2012 then it’s needs to be said.

Those games were worse than Tuesday. By a lot.

 

[Consigliere]

yes still a charge according to what Sean posted. Everything's a charge short of undercutting a guy already in the air, in the circle underneath or if the defender moves forward into the other guy. In fact the defender only nly need to be in front of a guy for a millisecond, feet don't need be planted, don't need to be "set", can be turned away, only on one foot, moving backward etc. is how I'm reading it, defintely different from my old days reffing back in the day (way back).

Now, It's all a charge short of the above circumstances. Coaches players on our team please take note!

Really confused. It says in 17.4.a that both feet must be on the floor to establish legal guarding position. That can be interpreted that even a back pedal is impermissible, couldn’t it? ( not sure why copy/paste removed spaces)

Art.4. Toestablishaninitiallegalguardingpositionontheplayerwiththeball:
a� Theguardshallhavebothfeettouchingtheplayingcourt�Whentheguard jumps into position initially, both feet must return to the playing court after the jump, for the guard to establish a legal guarding position�

 

[Cuseregular]

Without reading this thread if the answer hasn’t be said Brandon Triche “charge” against Michigan in 2013 or the entire Ohio State game from 2012 then it’s needs to be said.

Those games were worse than Tuesday. By a lot.

Yep, that’s what I thought at the time as well, however, in reading the rulebook, Sean posted those including CJ fairs against Duke were all charges.

 

[Cuseregular]

Really confused. It says in 17.4.a that both feet must be on the floor to establish legal guarding position. That can be interpreted that even a back pedal is impermissible, couldn’t it? ( not sure why copy/paste removed spaces)

Art.4. Toestablishaninitiallegalguardingpositionontheplayerwiththeball:
a� Theguardshallhavebothfeettouchingtheplayingcourt�Whentheguard jumps into position initially, both feet must return to the playing court after the jump, for the guard to establish a legal guarding position�

Read the whole section Sean posted. Did last night and pretty sure that’s what I read in one section in counter to what u listed. Basically saying as long as those 2 foot were down initially if for only a millisecond, you then can lift up your heels or be only on 1 foot at contact to try and protect your body.

Just crazy, and ridiculous.

 

[Consigliere]

Read the whole section Sean posted. Did last night and pretty sure that’s what I read in one section in counter to what u listed. Basically saying as long as those 2 foot were down, initially, you can lift up your heels or be only on 1 foot at contact.

I read it. Really confusing and yes, part of it reads like the only time a block should be called is when the defender is moving into the ball handler.
In 45 years of watching college basketball, that’s not how I have seen the game called. I guess there is a reason they say block/charge is the most inconsistent call in college basketball

 

[Cuseregular]

I read it. Really confusing and yes, part of it reads like the only time a block should be called is when the defender is moving into the ball handler.
In 45 years of watching college basketball, that’s not how I have seen the game called. I guess there is a reason they say block/charge is the most inconsistent call in college basketball

Yep as I wrote in an exasperated post above based on the rules, as written, a defender should jump in front of a guy on every virtually single play.

 

[FrancoPizza]

It was a charge. Defender is entitled to his space, even if he was moving backwards.

Thank you. Mintz was out of control. Take emotion out of the discussion.

 

[orangecuse]

Interesting how some folks are choosing to debate the technicalities and somewhat conveniently ignoring the optics, especially in a bang bang play. IMO, it's objectively difficult to argue otherwise that the high leading of the elbow being the proximate cause to the substantial blow to the defenders face, nose, etc. And, in doing so, creating the significantly higher chance/potential of serious injury. Hence, per the rule, the refs all agreed to upgrade it to a Flagrant 1.

Perhaps, arguably, if Mintz's elbow hits the sternum, shoulder blade area, etc. instead of the face, the ref calls a block. However, that's not what happened.

 

[Cuseregular]

Interesting how some folks are choosing to debate the technicalities and somewhat conveniently ignoring the optics, especially in a bang bang play. IMO, it's objectively difficult to argue otherwise that the high leading of the elbow being the proximate cause to the substantial blow to the defenders face, nose, etc. And, in doing so, creating the significantly higher chance/potential of serious injury. Hence, per the rule, the refs all agreed to upgrade it to a Flagrant 1.

Perhaps, arguably, if Mintz's elbow hits the sternum, shoulder blade area, etc. instead of the face, the ref calls a block. However, that's not what happened.

not a chance a block will called in our favor in any of these big games in any of these discussed, and that won't be wrong if one goes by the "rules", and yes for sure as to the flagrant 1, also by a strict interpretation of the rules.

As to the former, as Consig noted, this is not how it's gone and called in all the years of our fandom with the belief you need to be "set" for a prescribed period of time, and I'm sure it won't be the case either when we need the charge called in the opposite situation, it'll be wrongly called a block against us, because, you know, "interpretation" of the rule will be the buzz word to screw us. That you can bank on ratcheting up the frustration level another 10 notches.

 

[two3zone]

Yep as I wrote in an exasperated post above based on the rules, as written, a defender should jump in front of a guy on every virtually single play.

And on the other side as long as the defender has cinder blocks on his feet, any contact is a defensive foul?

You can’t just run into people (or elbow them in the face) and just because they’re not stationary mean it’s a defensive foul. If that was the case you’d just sign 5 linebackers who can hit free throws and have them bull charge into every defender and shoot 120 free throws a game.

 

[two3zone]

Interesting how some folks are choosing to debate the technicalities and somewhat conveniently ignoring the optics, especially in a bang bang play. IMO, it's objectively difficult to argue otherwise that the high leading of the elbow being the proximate cause to the substantial blow to the defenders face, nose, etc. And, in doing so, creating the significantly higher chance/potential of serious injury. Hence, per the rule, the refs all agreed to upgrade it to a Flagrant 1.

Perhaps, arguably, if Mintz's elbow hits the sternum, shoulder blade area, etc. instead of the face, the ref calls a block. However, that's not what happened.

If it was a NC player many here would be arguing the other way than they’re arguing now.

 

[Millhouse]

And on the other side as long as the defender has cinder blocks on his feet, any contact is a defensive foul?

You can’t just run into people (or elbow them in the face) and just because they’re not stationary mean it’s a defensive foul. If that was the case you’d just sign 5 linebackers who can hit free throws and have them bull charge into every defender and shoot 120 free throws a game.

Go straight at the chest of anyone backpedaling

 

[Millhouse]

If it was a NC player many here would be arguing the other way than they’re arguing now.

Can we please stop this? It's way better if we all just assumed people mean what they say