RE: Neutral Opinion needed....Video of last play of Dook game...
- Posted by TVs_DeceitI understand your point, but it's still a possession, and the team has a right to score points unhindered the same as the first possession in a game. At least by not being flagrantly hindered.- Posted by TruthBKnown Banned Again01- Posted by SportznutV2.0- Posted by TruthBKnown Banned Again01
I thought it was an undercut and should have been called a foul (against Duke).
But apparently, teams can do no wrong in the last 5 seconds of a game. So a no-call is par for the course.
very true..I think a 20 second battle royal would be sweet to end a game
After giving this more thought, I'm OK with what happened. (And it is similar to what happened at the end of the State-Miami game, as well...)
In both games, the team with the ball took their shot at winning the game. They got the shot off, and missed. And there was almost no time left on the clock. After the missed shots, I believe the refs are simply not going to GIVE the game to either team. They're going to allow the hard contact underneath.
In the State-Miami game, I think Howell would have gotten away with a hip-bump that pushed the Miami player out of position. In that game, we just happened to be on the receiving end of it. But the same principle was in play. The refs were not going to GIVE the game to either team. So they just let it play out underneath.
I'll be watching for this in future games to see if my theory is correct.
Who gives the game away can also be seen as the player doing the flagrant fouling.
Taking out the two players ON PURPOSE was a gross offense, and Cook is the one who, if called, "gave away" the game by committing the fouls. Not the refs.
In fact, the refs could also be said to be giving away the game to Duke by not calling the foul.
Also, the BC players could have easily been injured the way Cook ran in shoving and undercutting.
If refs let that kind of intentional fouling continue to occur "just because" there's only a few seconds in a game, eventually a player's going to pay the price with a potentially serious injury.
Oh, I agree. I never said it was right. I just think that is how they operate. And if it is, teams need to act accordingly to do what it takes to finish the game at the very end. If I'm right, it would be a big advantage for teams that are aware of this.