ajb5856 Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 Talking about the Hammond ruling for those who saw it. What is the rule now? Is it not automatic flagrant for above the shoulders contact anymore? Did they change that so the refs can use their discretion after reviewing it? The contact wasn't too severe but there was contact from what I could tell. So when the offensive player swings their elbow through like that it depends on how well the elbow connects? That was sort of a big call. If it had been called it would have negated Hammond's foul which occurred later in the possession, taken away their FT opportunity, and given us a FT opportunity. Sorry is this has been mentioned elsewhere, I don't have time to read the entire board tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basketballjones Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 I'm interested in clarification on this too - because in the first half I was at the bar watching it on my phone with no sound. So I didn't get to see what the ruling on Shavon's was that was clearly a flop by the Cincy guy. But they got the ball there so I assume Shavon was charged with a foul. Which clearly hurt us later. Did we get the ball and was Cincy charged with a foul after Jacob got nailed (which he clearly did)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugeaters1 Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 I'm interested in clarification on this too - because in the first half I was at the bar watching it on my phone with no sound. So I didn't get to see what the ruling on Shavon's was that was clearly a flop by the Cincy guy. But they got the ball there so I assume Shavon was charged with a foul. Which clearly hurt us later. Did we get the ball and was Cincy charged with a foul after Jacob got nailed (which he clearly did)? I think I heard the color guy say that Shavon got the foul do to him violated the defenders space. breaking the defenders plain, if that makes any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basketballjones Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 I'm interested in clarification on this too - because in the first half I was at the bar watching it on my phone with no sound. So I didn't get to see what the ruling on Shavon's was that was clearly a flop by the Cincy guy. But they got the ball there so I assume Shavon was charged with a foul. Which clearly hurt us later. Did we get the ball and was Cincy charged with a foul after Jacob got nailed (which he clearly did)? I think I heard the color guy say that Shavon got the foul do to him violated the defenders space. breaking the defenders plain, if that makes any sense.No it really doesn't, haha. Because the defender is clearly violating his space if he's close enough to get hit with an elbow as a player moves the ball. Annoying rule, to say the least... Don't want to get knocked in the jaw, get your face out of the way. Simple. brfrad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb5856 Posted November 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 I'm interested in clarification on this too - because in the first half I was at the bar watching it on my phone with no sound. So I didn't get to see what the ruling on Shavon's was that was clearly a flop by the Cincy guy. But they got the ball there so I assume Shavon was charged with a foul. Which clearly hurt us later. Did we get the ball and was Cincy charged with a foul after Jacob got nailed (which he clearly did)? On the Hammond play they reviewed it and didn't call anything on Cincinnati. Cincy got to shoot their free throws for the foul that was called on Hammond under the basket later on in that same possession. Once the play stopped for that whistle they went back and reviewed the above shoulders contact to Hammond at the top of the key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Peterson Posted November 29, 2015 Report Share Posted November 29, 2015 If I had to guess on the explanation for the no call with Hammond, it looks like on the first replay that it wasn't clear whether contact was made. On the second replay, it was much more clear that there was actual contact. But if the officials only looked at the first replay, they would not have seen clear contact and might have decided it was a no call situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.