In Regards To Jok's Flagrant Foul

[Hawkeyes5]

The biggest thing to me was WHAT CHANGED after Jok's first free throw. Suddenly after they gave the ball to Jok and let him shoot a free throw...THEN one of the refs decided he saw contact to the head and needed to review it? That does not make sense. Either you saw contact to the head right when it happened or you didn't.

My only assumption is that he was watching the video review on the bigscreen and saw it and then decided to go back and review it after it was too late. What the refs did there was pathetic.

 

[Hawkeyes5]

I think it was Wisky d*cks head coach that drew the officials attention. Just saying....

 

[Thawki]

The rules are out there free of charge for any literate person to read. You don't have to be an official to understand them.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...ens-basketball-rules-and-interpretations.aspx

Actually, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, you really do. It might not be as complicated in basketball, or maybe it is. But in football there are always many circumstances that don't simply allow one to look at one rule in the rule book and exclaim they are correct and the official on the field is an idiot.

Maybe this one isn't the best example, but let me try again. What if there was an instance where there were two different rules that needed to all be interpreted properly in order to make the correct call on a given play. But what if a novice sports fan pulled out the rule book and found only one of those rules and looked at it and decided after reading it that they just proved their point?

But what if, when both rules that truly needed to be considered in this example, there was a different outcome in how the rules were applied? Maybe there is a case where there is one specific rule. In a vacuum without considering any other rules, it says something fairly obvious. But what if there is another rule that states, in a certain circumstance, if this first rule is being considered you must also consider this second rule. And what if in certain circumstances the second rule takes precedence over the first?

You never would have gotten to that point because you interpreteted the first rule in a vacuum without ever realizing the second rule was there. In that type of circumstance you would have drawn the wrong conclusion.

I am not saying that happened here. I am saying I am usually fairly leary of some average joe fan quoting the rule book, for the reasons I just described. If you spent enough time around officials that do that sort of thing at the highest levels, I think you would better understand my reasoning. As it is, I am fairly certain you will read this response and think that I am full of it, simply because you found the rule so you must be correct.

 

[tksirius]

Actually, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, you really do. It might not be as complicated in basketball, or maybe it is. But in football there are always many circumstances that don't simply allow one to look at one rule in the rule book and exclaim they are correct and the official on the field is an idiot.

Maybe this one isn't the best example, but let me try again. What if there was an instance where there were two different rules that needed to all be interpreted properly in order to make the correct call on a given play. But what if a novice sports fan pulled out the rule book and found only one of those rules and looked at it and decided after reading it that they just proved their point?

But what if, when both rules that truly needed to be considered in this example, there was a different outcome in how the rules were applied? Maybe there is a case where there is one specific rule. In a vacuum without considering any other rules, it says something fairly obvious. But what if there is another rule that states, in a certain circumstance, if this first rule is being considered you must also consider this second rule. And what if in certain circumstances the second rule takes precedence over the first?

You never would have gotten to that point because you interpreteted the first rule in a vacuum without ever realizing the second rule was there. In that type of circumstance you would have drawn the wrong conclusion.

I am not saying that happened here. I am saying I am usually fairly leary of some average joe fan quoting the rule book, for the reasons I just described. If you spent enough time around officials that do that sort of thing at the highest levels, I think you would better understand my reasoning. As it is, I am fairly certain you will read this response and think that I am full of it, simply because you found the rule so you must be correct.

 

[revkev73]

I saw NO evidence that Jok even touched the little punk...you shouldn't get rewarded for intentionally pulling a guy down...On the other hand, from Jok...no contact, no intent...

Glad it doesn't matter...Iowa wins...Iowa wins...Iowa wins...

 

[homes]

In case anyone wonders about what is a live ball....

Section 1. Live Ball
Art. 1. The game and each period start when the ball becomes live.
Art. 2. The ball shall become live when:
a. On a jump ball, the ball leaves the official’s hand.
b. On a throw-in, the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in.
c. On a free throw, the ball is at the disposal of the free-thrower.

At first blush, I thought since Jok had shot a free throw, the ball was now "live". However, I'm having second thoughts, and ask out of ignorance. Does that mean the ball remains "live" for the entirety of the free throw sequence, or can it be "dead" between free throw number 1 and free throw number 2, i.e., before the ref hands the ball back to the shooter for the second free throw? In that moment between the free throws, there is a period where the ball is not "at the disposal of the free-thrower". Maybe that is the rule, so it was not outside the refs' purview to look at the replay. Either way, it's not really an interpretation - either the ball is still "live" or it's "dead" in that time between free throws. Second, did Jok get the ball from the ref for the second free throw and then have to give it back? If that occurred (I don't recall), then that seems to have been a "live" ball.

Any rules mavens know the answer?

I don't recall hearing that Fran and his staff were objecting to the refs looking at the replay on the basis that the rules didn't allow them to.

Whether Jok hit him or not is a separate issue.

 

[thedukeofearl]

I honestly could not tell if the elbow connected. I watched it a bunch of times.

Same here, Rob, watched it over and over and very difficult to determine if Jok's elbow connected or not.
Calhoun did mention that it was certainly not intentional by Jok.....

Most definitely an Academy Award performance by Showalter who should have fouled out in the first half.....

Read elsewhere that the same zebra crew was at Lincoln and Minneapolis. Found this from a knowledgeable source on another site:

"It was the same ref crew that called Iowa's 2OT losses to Nebraska and Minnesota. They're not very good.

There was some random-ass nonsense both ways. Thank God that flagrant didn't end up costing Iowa the game."

 

[ShemHawk]

Actually, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, you really do. It might not be as complicated in basketball, or maybe it is. But in football there are always many circumstances that don't simply allow one to look at one rule in the rule book and exclaim they are correct and the official on the field is an idiot.

Maybe this one isn't the best example, but let me try again. What if there was an instance where there were two different rules that needed to all be interpreted properly in order to make the correct call on a given play. But what if a novice sports fan pulled out the rule book and found only one of those rules and looked at it and decided after reading it that they just proved their point?

But what if, when both rules that truly needed to be considered in this example, there was a different outcome in how the rules were applied? Maybe there is a case where there is one specific rule. In a vacuum without considering any other rules, it says something fairly obvious. But what if there is another rule that states, in a certain circumstance, if this first rule is being considered you must also consider this second rule. And what if in certain circumstances the second rule takes precedence over the first?

You never would have gotten to that point because you interpreteted the first rule in a vacuum without ever realizing the second rule was there. In that type of circumstance you would have drawn the wrong conclusion.

I am not saying that happened here. I am saying I am usually fairly leary of some average joe fan quoting the rule book, for the reasons I just described. If you spent enough time around officials that do that sort of thing at the highest levels, I think you would better understand my reasoning. As it is, I am fairly certain you will read this response and think that I am full of it, simply because you found the rule so you must be correct.

I think your point is more accurately stated that the officials are more likely to be aware of other rules/guidelines that affect the call, because the rules themselves are not hard to understand, nor is it hard to understand when multiple rules apply. What is hard, as you stated, is being aware of everything that must be considered. That is different, however, than saying you have to be an official to understand.

 

[MileHighHawkeye]

I'm hoping that going forward the refs are more aware of the grabbing of Jok and look for it and call it. I don't think it will stop entirely but maybe it won't happen so often. We'll see Sunday.

 

[PCHawk]

One angle looked like he for sure got him and the angle from above made it look like there was space but it was too far away to know for sure. That made me think it was a perfectly timed flop that made the first angle look bad.

 

[PCHawk]

Actually, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, you really do. It might not be as complicated in basketball, or maybe it is. But in football there are always many circumstances that don't simply allow one to look at one rule in the rule book and exclaim they are correct and the official on the field is an idiot.

Maybe this one isn't the best example, but let me try again. What if there was an instance where there were two different rules that needed to all be interpreted properly in order to make the correct call on a given play. But what if a novice sports fan pulled out the rule book and found only one of those rules and looked at it and decided after reading it that they just proved their point?

But what if, when both rules that truly needed to be considered in this example, there was a different outcome in how the rules were applied? Maybe there is a case where there is one specific rule. In a vacuum without considering any other rules, it says something fairly obvious. But what if there is another rule that states, in a certain circumstance, if this first rule is being considered you must also consider this second rule. And what if in certain circumstances the second rule takes precedence over the first?

You never would have gotten to that point because you interpreteted the first rule in a vacuum without ever realizing the second rule was there. In that type of circumstance you would have drawn the wrong conclusion.

I am not saying that happened here. I am saying I am usually fairly leary of some average joe fan quoting the rule book, for the reasons I just described. If you spent enough time around officials that do that sort of thing at the highest levels, I think you would better understand my reasoning. As it is, I am fairly certain you will read this response and think that I am full of it, simply because you found the rule so you must be correct.

Your post is an in erecting perspective, but it's irrelevant to this discussion because the rule in question is black and white. There isn't a single rule that says there are any circumstances where you can challah get a touchdown after the extra point. I'm not an official and I've never read and rule book, but I know that without and doubt....I think

 

[revkev73]

Pull, grab, jab, rolling picks, acting jobs...Badger Ball (not to mention the steady dose of boring style of play)

When the tournament (conference and the big one) comes, the talent of the officials is upgraded, the inept ones (Minnesota game) are often left home to watch on TV like fans. Top talent refs are able to see such dirty tactics and have the courage to call it against schmuck teams like the Badgers...who seem to not do that well...given their seeding and season records when talented refs start calling games.

Plus...the top tier refs spend time on their own, reviewing tapes, researching trends of teams and coaches. That is why they are the best.

More of the top tier are needed...

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Unless someone is an official at a high level, I am typically wary of people using the rule book to win their point.

My brother officiates football in a major conference. Typically any given play that someone wants to question might involve multiple rules from the rule book that need to all be considered and interpreted for that given situation. In football, finding a rule in the book and posting it like you did here would not mean that the rules were necessarily enforced properly.

I don't know about this specific instance, and it certainly seems cut and dried. I am just telling you what I know to be true in football from someone that knows more about the rules than most people will ever dream of knowing.

So you are certain you are not certain?

 

[NEIChawk]

Good morning, my name is Grayson Allen and I play by my own set of rules....technical?? Trip?? Elbow?? Head jerk?? Ha ha, Wisconsin bought my step-by-step colored diagrams on the how-to's....

 

[earlkoppelman]

Since when do the rules matter to Big 10 refs? Pfffft!!

AGREE!! Other player heavy grab pull and jerk move.NUFF said no?IN hockey BLOOD major no?