Did this warrant an ejection?? Gard sure thinks so....

Donate To GopherHole
C

cheeseheadgophfan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,107
Reaction score
1,709
Points
113
sports.yahoo.com

Flagrant foul vs. Nebraska injures Wisconsin Wooden finalist Johnny Davis

A long-term injury to Davis would likely derail Wisconsin's Final Four hopes.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com

1. Was this flagrant? Maybe. But McGowans does everything he can to avoid falling on him. The shot to the face maybe deserves a flagrant 1, but an ejection? C'mon
2. Gard says he voiced issues with the refs and would make the appropriate call.....LOL----Badgers were in the bonus with 15 minutes left in the 2nd half. Nebraska's best player is ejected and 2nd best player got a technical (and 4th personal foul) by looking at the ref and shaking his head.
3. Gee I wonder why Davison and the rest of the Badger's are a bunch of whiny douches????? Like coach, like player.
 


It was not only a flagrant foul but it was an intentional foul with the motivation to take out an opponent's best player.
Hoiberg fields a thug team, and always has.
Gard is not an emotional coach who shoots from the hip.
It will be interesting to see what the BIG office does.
 

Plato said:
It was not only a flagrant foul but it was an intentional foul with the motivation to take out an opponent's best player.
Hoiberg fields a thug team, and always has.
Gard is not an emotional coach who shoots from the hip.
It will be interesting to see what the BIG office does.
Click to expand...

IALTO.
 



It’s a hard call. A flagrant. Shouldn’t be ejected as I don’t think you can say for sure ill intent

I’ve seen wisconsin players not get even a common foul for as much
 

Gard was a cry baby as an assistant and hasn’t changed now that he is getting the big bucks.
 

Lion King said:
No,but good acting gets the call . Fouls are fouls,but somehow this acting has to stop.
Click to expand...

Lion King said:
This kind of play happens every game, they usually call it a good block !Play on !
Click to expand...
There's rivalry, delusion, sarcasm, or don't know anything about the game and determined to prove it." Anyone of these might explain this take.

First, to be a "good block," you'd have to touch the ball. I think that's sort of the definition of a block, right? The defender didn't even reach for the ball. As for intent, intent isn't part of the rule, is it? If so, they'll need a new monitor to look at...the one that looks into your soul. As for unnecessary (which I believe is in he rule), refs had to see that the bent arm isn't reaching for the ball at all but clearly swings, violently, through the neck, face and head.

As for acting, the picture shows what an amazing actor Davis to have his nose pushed back into his skull and his head snap back. I heard from a podcast/blog/whisper-by- someone-in-a-crowd, that Gard spends the first 3 weeks focused on teaching just this thing. (sarcasm)

For folks saying this happens often, not on breakaway layups. F2 is the right call.

1646741701791.png
 




The whole sequence starts when Davis' foot hits the trailing defender and then his own foot, tripping himself and causing him to stumble for a number of steps. The trailing player appears to jump hoping to block the shot, but because Davis is stumbling and releases the ball from an unusual angle, he never has a chance to get to the ball. He hits Davis in the face, so it's more than "play on," but he does try to avoid landing on Davis which he could have easily done if truly intending to injure him. I would say it's a Flagarant 1 for the contact above the shoulders, but no ejection and no additional action required by the conference in response to any phone call from Gard.

Not relevant to the rules analysis, but if Davis has a "lower body" injury, it would seem to have more likely occurred during his awkward series of steps before the foul at the basket than from his fall or any contact with the Nebraska player.
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
The whole sequence starts when Davis' foot hits the trailing defender and then his own foot, tripping himself and causing him to stumble for a number of steps. The trailing player appears to jump hoping to block the shot, but because Davis is stumbling and releases the ball from an unusual angle, he never has a chance to get to the ball. He hits Davis in the face, so it's more than "play on," but he does try to avoid landing on Davis which he could have easily done if truly intending to injure him. I would say it's a Flagarant 1 for the contact above the shoulders, but no ejection and no additional action required by the conference in response to any phone call from Gard.

Not relevant to the rules analysis, but if Davis has a "lower body" injury, it would seem to have more likely occurred during his awkward series of steps before the foul at the basket than from his fall or any contact with the Nebraska player.
Click to expand...
Didn't see it live but watching replays I had a similar take on this one. Didn't feel like the Nebraska player was trying to hurt Davis but not surprised Wisconsin fans and their coach see it that way. I absolutely think the stumble played a big role in what happened because Davis was not where he would have been under normal circumstances.
 


Davis's foot hit the train defender's foot because the defender tried to trip him.
The blow to his face was from an elbow not a hand.
I know that it is a bitter pill to swallow to see WI again as BTN Champions and again going to the NCAA while MN sits at home but it but some of the above statements were bizarre.
 



Plato said:
Davis's foot hit the train defender's foot because the defender tried to trip him.
Click to expand...
Where do you get that? Davis is cutting in front of him and he does a skip step to try to avoid contact. Davis' heel hits him in the shin while the defender's knee is bent and his foot is pointing backwards. The defender doesn't lunge or stick his foot out (like you know who does when he's trying to trip somebody). What do you see that makes you think he's attempting to trip him?
 

Maybe they can settle it in the B1G Championship game.
 

The replay angle they showed from behind the backboard is conclusive. There was no attempt at a play on the ball. It was a tomahawk chop right down into the player's head. Easy flagrant-2 call. (One of the few they got right that day.)
 

cheeseheadgophfan said:
sports.yahoo.com

Flagrant foul vs. Nebraska injures Wisconsin Wooden finalist Johnny Davis

A long-term injury to Davis would likely derail Wisconsin's Final Four hopes.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com

1. Was this flagrant? Maybe. But McGowans does everything he can to avoid falling on him. The shot to the face maybe deserves a flagrant 1, but an ejection? C'mon
Click to expand...
Only if committed by Brad Davison.
cheeseheadgophfan said:
2. Gard says he voiced issues with the refs and would make the appropriate call.....LOL----Badgers were in the bonus with 15 minutes left in the 2nd half. Nebraska's best player is ejected and 2nd best player got a technical (and 4th personal foul) by looking at the ref and shaking his head.
3. Gee I wonder why Davison and the rest of the Badger's are a bunch of whiny douches????? Like coach, like player.
Click to expand...
 

Plato said:
It was not only a flagrant foul but it was an intentional foul with the motivation to take out an opponent's best player.
Hoiberg fields a thug team, and always has.
Gard is not an emotional coach who shoots from the hip.
It will be interesting to see what the BIG office does.
Click to expand...
Are you and BuiltBadgers related?
 


2nd Degree Gopher said:
The whole sequence starts when Davis' foot hits the trailing defender and then his own foot, tripping himself and causing him to stumble for a number of steps. The trailing player appears to jump hoping to block the shot, but because Davis is stumbling and releases the ball from an unusual angle, he never has a chance to get to the ball. He hits Davis in the face, so it's more than "play on," but he does try to avoid landing on Davis which he could have easily done if truly intending to injure him. I would say it's a Flagarant 1 for the contact above the shoulders, but no ejection and no additional action required by the conference in response to any phone call from Gard.

Not relevant to the rules analysis, but if Davis has a "lower body" injury, it would seem to have more likely occurred during his awkward series of steps before the foul at the basket than from his fall or any contact with the Nebraska player.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think flagrant one or flagrant two are both fine because of how it ended up. I don’t think anyone in their right mind can say Nebraska kid was trying to cheap shot him. He made a stupid play and got himself into a bad position and landed on him.
 

Bad Gopher said:
The replay angle they showed from behind the backboard is conclusive. There was no attempt at a play on the ball. It was a tomahawk chop right down into the player's head. Easy flagrant-2 call. (One of the few they got right that day.)
Click to expand...
Disagree from the angles I’ve seen but I’ve only seen 2-3 angles. If you have a good angle showing the cheap shot clearly please post because I’d like to see it. I can only find super wide shots on twitter
 

Some guy said:
Disagree from the angles I’ve seen but I’ve only seen 2-3 angles. If you have a good angle showing the cheap shot clearly please post because I’d like to see it. I can only find super wide shots on twitter
Click to expand...
It was just what I saw during the telecast. If I happen upon that angle, I'll post it.
 


As a former basketball official I would call that a flagrant foul And eject the player, as it looks like an intentional hit to Davis’ face instead of playing the ball. Davis’ leg injury probably came when he lost his balance after an inadvertent trip. It looks like his right knee buckles slightly as he is driving. Sad if Davis is out for any period of time but Brad Davidson has been intentionally hitting opponents in sensitive body parts for five years With no apparent consequences from Bucky. When it happens to a Badger they are outraged?
 


Bobek said:
As a former basketball official I would call that a flagrant foul And eject the player, as it looks like an intentional hit to Davis’ face instead of playing the ball. Davis’ leg injury probably came when he lost his balance after an inadvertent trip. It looks like his right knee buckles slightly as he is driving. Sad if Davis is out for any period of time but Brad Davidson has been intentionally hitting opponents in sensitive body parts for five years With no apparent consequences from Bucky. When it happens to a Badger they are outraged?
Click to expand...
Karma for sure
 

Dunceswithwolves said:
There's rivalry, delusion, sarcasm, or don't know anything about the game and determined to prove it." Anyone of these might explain this take.

First, to be a "good block," you'd have to touch the ball. I think that's sort of the definition of a block, right? The defender didn't even reach for the ball. As for intent, intent isn't part of the rule, is it? If so, they'll need a new monitor to look at...the one that looks into your soul. As for unnecessary (which I believe is in he rule), refs had to see that the bent arm isn't reaching for the ball at all but clearly swings, violently, through the neck, face and head.

As for acting, the picture shows what an amazing actor Davis to have his nose pushed back into his skull and his head snap back. I heard from a podcast/blog/whisper-by- someone-in-a-crowd, that Gard spends the first 3 weeks focused on teaching just this thing. (sarcasm)

For folks saying this happens often, not on breakaway layups. F2 is the right call.

View attachment 17391
Click to expand...
That is a deceptive image. Davis knee gave way which caused defender to fall into Davis as Davis was collapsing. If your image showed the whole body down to the floor you would see the actual issue. This image, cropped as it is, gives a false representation of what happened.
An argument for a flagrant one could be made, but the correct call would be just a regular foul. The flagrant two was just a homer call with no merit.
 



Dunceswithwolves said:
There's rivalry, delusion, sarcasm, or don't know anything about the game and determined to prove it." Anyone of these might explain this take.

First, to be a "good block," you'd have to touch the ball. I think that's sort of the definition of a block, right? The defender didn't even reach for the ball. As for intent, intent isn't part of the rule, is it? If so, they'll need a new monitor to look at...the one that looks into your soul. As for unnecessary (which I believe is in he rule), refs had to see that the bent arm isn't reaching for the ball at all but clearly swings, violently, through the neck, face and head.

As for acting, the picture shows what an amazing actor Davis to have his nose pushed back into his skull and his head snap back. I heard from a podcast/blog/whisper-by- someone-in-a-crowd, that Gard spends the first 3 weeks focused on teaching just this thing. (sarcasm)

For folks saying this happens often, not on breakaway layups. F2 is the right call.

View attachment 17391
Click to expand...

Glad you were able to explain what you believe, but your wrong !! It's the price you pay with a # 34 on your roster
 
Last edited:

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom