Woody does it again pulls the hat trick

RocknRollface said:
I hope you are joking, otherwise there's no way you have a fully functioning brain.
Click to expand...
...yeah. The refs don't have fully functioning brains either. If they did, they wouldn't have went to the video and THEN hit Woody with a flagrant 1 foul. And, when the BIG steps in and suspends Woody, I suppose you'll be here to question their brain pans?
 
biasedHAWKEYE said:
How else should a center attempt to guard a smaller, quicker player? If the big doesn't eat space with his wingspan, the guard will drive right around the center. Have to maintain some distance to react in case of the drive, while using your wingspan to take away the jumper.
Click to expand...

He has no clue what he's talking about.
 
lightning1 said:
You guys can argue with me until you are blue in the face. The men who get PAID to determine the intentional nature of the play.....called it a FLAGRANT 1! They didn't make that call in actual game speed, where mistakes can be made. They went over to the monitor, took their time, held a conference about it and hit Thugbury with the flagrant 1.
I can't wait to hear you guys squeal when the BIG conference views the video footage and they suspend him.
Click to expand...

^^^^
Doesn't know difference between flagrant 1 and 2
 
Kobe Bryant demonstrating the proper form and function of a face guard.
lakers519.jpg
 
No big deal if we win the tip or not. If not,then we get the ball to begin the half. This talk of Woodbury being dirty is a crok of s h i t. You call yourselves Iowa fans..
 
lightning1 said:
That's a blatant lie. You put quotations around a blatant lie and attempt to attribute said lie to me. Nice try. And I never once played with Guy Rucker. He wasn't much of a gym rat, if I recall. Probably why he never got any better after his FR season.
Click to expand...
"I played a game of laser tag against seth gorney and Jr dangle."
 
lightning1 said:
I've face guarded hundreds of guards. I never once did it with my fingers extended. Why? Because it would not work to restrict a players court vision.....unless your intention was to poke him in the eye. I have never had another guard face guard me with their fingers extended. I've had a lot of close calls with players swiping at the ball. Face guarding a player that's 10 feet from the basket, as Trimble was, is not remotely effective either and is not something I have ever seen coached. If Trimble was going to rise up for a jumper, the face guard would be useless. Every 4/5 that's ever been coached is taught to put both hands straight up or try and block the shot. No 7'1 Center in the history of basketball, has ever been coached to face guard a 6'3 PG as a means of defense in the lane. I shouldn't think it's even necessary to explain that.
Click to expand...
"Ive face guarded 100's of jabronis at my local Y and ive played NBA Jam like 2000 times."
 
The one with Kaminsky was completely different than the other 2. He was doing pretty much what Kobe did in that picture. He drug his hand down his face to mess with him. It wasn't an eye poke like the other 2. So technically the eye poke has only happened twice.

I did watch the vine that lightning posted and I was dying laughing for about 5 minutes because it looked so much like he was doing it on purpose. The good thing for me though is I have the ability to use common sense and common sense says there is a 0% chance he did it on purpose.

The one thing lawyers always need in court is to establish motive. There is absolutely no motive for Woody to want to hurt Tremble in that situation. When you add in the fact that it would be all but impossible to poke someone in the eye on purpose like that, it's obvious that it wasn't intentional.
 
HawkeyeMike23 said:
Lol how is the opinion of the victim of the "crime" a strawman?
Click to expand...
He didn't have the benefit of seeing the play on the monitor. He was playing full speed and likely didn't even see it coming. The refs didn't call the foul in real time either. I specifically stated that the REFS made the call after reviewing it on the monitor. You have no response to that fact so you offered up that straw man argument.
 
lightning1 said:
You guys can argue with me until you are blue in the face. The men who get PAID to determine the intentional nature of the play.....called it a FLAGRANT 1! They didn't make that call in actual game speed, where mistakes can be made. They went over to the monitor, took their time, held a conference about it and hit Thugbury with the flagrant 1.
I can't wait to hear you guys squeal when the BIG conference views the video footage and they suspend him.
Click to expand...

Again you have no clue what you are talking about. Any contact to the head, whether on purpose or not, is now a flagrant.

incidental is a flagrant one, intentional is a flagrant two and would result in ejection.

So the refs actually determined it was accidental.
 
lightning1 said:
He didn't have the benefit of seeing the play on the monitor. He was playing full speed and likely didn't even see it coming. The refs didn't call the foul in real time either. I specifically stated that the REFS made the call after reviewing it on the monitor. You have no response to that fact so you offered up that straw man argument.
Click to expand...

ThiS is getting pathetic. It is a well known rule outside the rec leagues that contact above the shoulder is a flagrant 1. You are losing and losing bad.
 
lightning1 said:
...yeah. The refs don't have fully functioning brains either. If they did, they wouldn't have went to the video and THEN hit Woody with a flagrant 1 foul. And, when the BIG steps in and suspends Woody, I suppose you'll be here to question their brain pans?
Click to expand...

If Woody does get suspended, the refs deserve to be questioned because you don't suspend someone for a flagarent 1. If he gets suspended, it means the refs should have called a flagarent 2.
 
PCHawk said:
The one with Kaminsky was completely different than the other 2. He was doing pretty much what Kobe did in that picture. He drug his hand down his face to mess with him. It wasn't an eye poke like the other 2. So technically the eye poke has only happened twice.

I did watch the vine that lightning posted and I was dying laughing for about 5 minutes because it looked so much like he was doing it on purpose. The good thing for me though is I have the ability to use common sense and common sense says there is a 0% chance he did it on purpose.

The one thing lawyers always need in court is to establish motive. There is absolutely no motive for Woody to want to hurt Tremble in that situation. When you add in the fact that it would be all but impossible to poke someone in the eye on purpose like that, it's obvious that it wasn't intentional.
Click to expand...
Every criminal in the prison system wants you to be a DA. You're their wet dream.
 
PCHawk said:
If Woody does get suspended, the refs deserve to be questioned because you don't suspend someone for a flagarent 1. If he gets suspended, it means the refs should have called a flagarent 2.
Click to expand...
The league office reviews all flagrant 1 and 2 fouls, I believe. I was under the impression a flagrant 2 has to be a foul committed during a dead ball situation. Either way, my point still stands. He was never taught to play defense that way. The league office will review it and after the 2 eye pokes at Wisconsin, he's likely to be suspended.
 
These are not the referees with whom you want to align yourself. They were totally incompetent and called a horrible game. They lost control of the game in the first half when Maryland started to press after falling behind by a bunch of points. At that time, Maryland tried to get very physical to get back into the game, and the fans around me were talking about how long it would be before a fight might break out. The officials obviously talked at halftime and called a lot of fouls in the second half, but got the lions' share of them wrong. But, its a good thing that they at least tried to get back in control of the game. Woody's "flagrant" foul was actually one of many, though I would reserve judgment on whether or not it was in fact purposeful. Probably a lot of personal insults among posters won't resolve the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top