Tuttle's Knocking Out Harrell
- Thread starter Loovull
- Start date
I'm not so convinced it wasn't intentional. That was a horrible call regardless. Harrell got ALL ball and when Tuttle got stuffed, he wasn't happy about it and came down hard with what I would consider an intentional shot to Harrell's face.
It doesn't matter though. Harrell got up. The game went on. The Cards won. It's all good.
I agree Cue. Tuttle seemed to allow his follow through momentum to go well beyond a reasonable measure.
Great game...
Go Cards!
Great game...
Go Cards!
I absolutely think it was intentional. Hard to imagine how both hands come down hard on his face accidentally. I noted a couple of other times he took cheap shots. We frustrated him a lot. I enjoyed seeing him cry as he left the game.
I agree that I think it was intentional. THat wasn't a normal follow through. I think he was frustrated and letting Harrell have it. Should have gone to the monitor.
I agree 100% and it is just another example of the Cards getting screwed.
Harrell put a target on his back when he blew his stack @ WKU. There is no way to shake that image, and the refs are not going to protect him for it.
Really? Were we watching the same game? That did not look intentional or flagrant at all to me. Was it hard? Sure. Was it intentional? No (I don't think so, not that it matters) ... hard hits happen, it just happened to be Trez's face unfortunately.
I do think Trez got robbed on that call, though... it was CLEAN. All ball, great stuff! No Foul!
The refs don't have it out for the Cards... that just doesn't hold water. UL was called for LESS fouls and shot 50% more free throws than UNI.
I do think Trez got robbed on that call, though... it was CLEAN. All ball, great stuff! No Foul!
The refs don't have it out for the Cards... that just doesn't hold water. UL was called for LESS fouls and shot 50% more free throws than UNI.
We can agree to disagree on his intent. It's impossible to come to a conclusion either way regardless. We don't know Tuttle's intent nor do we know what he was thinking at the time. He did seem to be frustrated, but even that can't be proven. As stated, it doesn't matter now anyway. Tuttle continued to play. Harrell continued to play. UNI lost. UofL won. It's all good.
The majority of the time, the team that is more aggressive with the ball will get the fouls called on the opponent. I felt UofL did a great job of attacking the basket, and not settling for too many jump shots. UNI on the other hand did not attack the basket as much which is why they didn't get as many called fouls on UofL. UofL played great last night and it took that type of effort to beat that team. UNI was for real regardless if they're well known or not. They were solid.
I agree completely. That is why teams that drive in, or have a strong inside presence, tend to get more calls. This is what UL needs to do more of, and one of the reasons UK tends to get more calls... because they attack.
I don't think there is some great big conspiracy, for or against any team. The refs have a job to do... they may not always do it well... but I get sick of fan bases everywhere, win or lose, complain about the "screw job" they are getting.
I also don't think Harrell intended to throw the ball off of the Miami players face. Still was called a flagrant. Just sayin
You are a bit naive if you think some type of human element doesn't come into play with officiating.
They are a key part of the game and when incredibly poor calls are made or obvious calls are not made it is obvious there is something else at work.
I refuse to write it off as part of the game.
I was pretty annoyed most the year because being the new team in the league we took it in the rear most games home or away.
Just curious, are you a Louisville fan or Kentucky fan? No big deal either way just curious.
Of course there are human elements to officiating. Humans make mistakes. *could* an official be bought/bribed/influenced/instructed... sure, it can happen. But not every official, every game.
Bad calls, missed calls, etc. happen all the time. Many calls are very subjective as well.
I'm a fan of basketball, first and foremost, I like to see all KY schools succeed. UK, UL, WKU, EKU, Bellarmine, etc. As a native son of Louisville KY, I root for both Cards and Cats and follow both teams. As an alumnus, I root for the Colonels but only casually follow. If push comes to shove, I do favor UK and hope they run the table... but I won't be heart broken if they don't.
Seriously...the guy went up for a jump shot, gets stuffed, and both hands come down with force square in Montrezl face. I don't think that is a natural follow through. Like I said, there were some cheap shots he did with Mangok also...it seemed he was frustrated and that was his reaction.
Good that you have your emotions in control one way or the other.
What I'm about to say, I don't mean to come off rude.
Duke, UK, and UNC are the most protected teams in the country by the officials.
So, it's really hard for a fan of one of those teams to truly understand the whole screw job by refs point of view. In fact, fans of those teams are so used to getting the calls they get really angry when they get into a game that is actually called evenly.
Whether intentional or not, my original point was why did it not get a further look at the monitor? Does the opposing coach have to request a look to get a look? It was obvious Trezl didn't do a flop on that play and he was down long enough for the refs to look without even taking more time than was used already?? Puzzling. We could have put the game away sooner if this was called properly.
The statement is not rude per se, but it is dismissive. I've seen good calls and bad calls all my life... in all sports. To say I can't see it because I like one team more than another is just not accurate. Like I said, many calls are subjective.
If you want to believe your team is getting the shaft, or another team is getting an unfair advantage, then you are going to see that every time because you are prejudiced to that outcome and are looking for it.
I'm just as likely to object to a call as I am to call out a missed call that goes "my" way... I enjoy the games, but I try to be objective in my criticisms.
If you want to believe your team is getting the shaft, or another team is getting an unfair advantage, then you are going to see that every time because you are prejudiced to that outcome and are looking for it.
I'm just as likely to object to a call as I am to call out a missed call that goes "my" way... I enjoy the games, but I try to be objective in my criticisms.
The fact that you say you didn't think Tuttle whacked Trez on purpose tells me you don't see things very well.
You can accuse me of having some kind of engrained bias which is some blah dismissive stuff on your own right...
but we've both got a totally different view on what happened on that play last night so that tells me you're probably wrong about officiating quite a bit.
Hahahaha, whatever dude. Subjective call, we each have our own opinions... I happen to agree with the no call in that situation. However, I disagree with the foul on Trez, it was a clean block. Or am I wrong on that too?
Real time shows it should have been a play on with no foul called. The block was clean. The replay appeared to show Tuttle following thru after the block with more than just the usual follow thru motion. He appears to follow thru harshly and the thing that slowed that harshness down was Harrell's face. Since he was laying on the floor for a reason, the refs should have at least went to the monitor to take a look at it. That's where I have my issue with that play. The refs did nothing but make a poor call since the block was clean. Did they think Harrell was just laying there to rest? I don't understand why they weren't a bit more curious as to why Harrell was counting his teeth.
You got that last part right, giving you a score of 50%, which is a failing grade in most things.
There were more bad calls last night than I care to recall. A couple favored Louisville, about a dozen favored UNI. Easy questions here though:
1) At what point did it become legal for the ball to bounce over the top of the backboard and still be a live ball? Did they change that rule recently?
2) Correct me if I wrong, but any time a player falls down with possession of the ball and both feet leave the floor, it's a travel. Period. Unless they changed that rule?
The foul calls, non-foul calls, continuations, walks, back courts, etc can always be interpretted as 50/50 calls, but stuff like the ball bouncing over the back board and player falling down with the ball are pretty much set it stone. Those were blatantly missed.
1) At what point did it become legal for the ball to bounce over the top of the backboard and still be a live ball? Did they change that rule recently?
2) Correct me if I wrong, but any time a player falls down with possession of the ball and both feet leave the floor, it's a travel. Period. Unless they changed that rule?
The foul calls, non-foul calls, continuations, walks, back courts, etc can always be interpretted as 50/50 calls, but stuff like the ball bouncing over the back board and player falling down with the ball are pretty much set it stone. Those were blatantly missed.
I agree with that completely. I don't think it was flagrant, but I DO think it should have been reviewed. I've seen lesser situations get reviewed.
What I find interesting... I don't think this was flagrant, but I do think the ball to the face was flagrant... to me, the difference is the egregiousness of the action. That is also how the refs called it (not that that really matters)... but what is interesting, I am in a distinct minority on the boards in BOTH cases. Many here, yourself included I believe, felt Tuttle was flagrant but Trez was not. Guess we'll just agree to disagree!
In regards to the ball to the face, I certainly think it could have been intentional, but I don't know what was in his head. When I saw it, I never even imagined it could be flagrant. I thought Montrezl was stumbling and trying to avoid a travel by getting rid of the ball quickly. With Tuttle, if one hand came in contact with Montrezl face, I would write it off as an accident. Two hands came down with force in the same direction in a way that does not correlate to jump shot follow through. Very suspicious.
That being said, I know basketball is intense, and actions on the court don't necessarily reflect on the individual in real life. Tuttle may be a fine young man. I think Trez is too, but I can understand if outsiders don't agree.
That being said, I know basketball is intense, and actions on the court don't necessarily reflect on the individual in real life. Tuttle may be a fine young man. I think Trez is too, but I can understand if outsiders don't agree.
Those were hilarious.
I've tired of posting examples glad somebody else was in the mood to do it.
Refs have a way of trying to enable a comeback. It's just human nature to kind of pull for the losing team I suppose. I know they are supposed to be professionals but it happens. The glide on the floor without dribbling and giving the time-out is a perfect example.
