Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest speechless
Posted
Saw this earlier today....first two fouls I got no problem with

fouls 3 and 4 are intentional and foul 5 could be an ejection but, not absolute
Posted
I agree, fouls 1, 2 and 6 are not flagrant, but the rest I would say they are. Foul #6 being that #34 committed it, could be considered one just because the player was involved in 3 of the other "hard" fouls.
Posted
no blood no foul. 
on a serious note, i would consider a couple of the fouls harder than they need to be.
After further review, w/o the distraction of a conf call, i would say 5 would deserve the hook.  We don't foul that hard at the Y.
Posted
On the first play was the only play that the defender made a basketball move on the ball. All the rest the defender made a move in the player trying to push down the player or air flip the man with ball. IMO the first play was the only play that was a legit foul all the rest are intentionally and should have resulted in an ejection
Posted
#34 is a disgrace to basketball. It appeared that he was trying to make a play on the ball a couple of times, but it was unnecessary to use that much force, IMO. He also grinned real big afterwards, which shows his true colors. He is a poor excuse for a basketball player.
The article stated that the coach supported his actions? The coach should be fired, IMO. I've never met a coach who encourages being that rough.
Posted
Definitely some hard fouls. [s]Back in the day a good hard offensive shoulder into the defensive chin of bullies would helped out, but I guess I should not advocate this violent move among you upstanding young people.[/s]
Posted
when a defender, especially one who outweighs his opponents by 100 or more pounds, is putting his whole body into "blocking" the ball, but keeps missing the ball and hitting the player full force and knocking them to the floor, he needs to be removed from the game (by both the coach AND the refs).  the majority of these fouls were flagrant, and they looked more intentional than just him being fat and clumsy.
Posted
The school is a 1A school in Washington.  #34's duties before playing basketball?  Offensive lineman for the 1A state championship football team.  The 80s glamband dude wearing the headband, #42, was a defensive lineman. 

In 34's case, I see a kid whose coach needed him to field a team.  He is clumsy out there, he plays like an offensive lineman, but the problem that I have with it, is that clumsy hurts people, intentionally or not.  Foul 5 is the most flagrant..

In 42's case, he committs 2 fouls that, in my opinion, should have been ejection worthy.  Foul 2, he gets boxed out, and then grabs the opposing player by the shoulders and flings him out of bounds.  That's flagrant, since he is not going for the ball, the ball is firmly in the opponent's possesion, and the kid doesn't swat at the ball, he grabs shoulders and throws.  Great if you're a defensive lineman, but not a basketball worthy move.  The second instant is the obvious "arms out" push he gives the opposing player.

What makes me laugh is that some people got bigger heartburn when Suh, another product of the Northwest, kicked at another player in pads.  Suh made less contact that #34 does, and less than #42 does.  Yet people call these "hard fouls" but not flagrant ones, and think tht the opposing team should "toughen up" and that "it's a part of the game". 

I got an idea...let Suh post up against #34, and then let #42 get a shot against Suh...he doesn't live that far away...I bet their "hard fouls"... won't be
Posted
On a positive note, the victims on the other end of these "fouls," in this so called basketball game, are definitely showing a lot of class and not retaliating. Granted, the footage is limited. That speaks loudly for the character of these kids.
  • Member Statistics

    46,283
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Malachi
    Newest Member
    Malachi
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...