Haven't seen this discussed on the F1 and Technical

[Purdue85]

apologies if already discussed, but I was surprised by the sequence with he dirty play by Omar Payne (the Flagrant foul and technical).

According to the rules, in short a F1 is 2 FT, and a F2 is 2 FT with player ejection.

Payne was hit with a F1 and Technical on the same sequence, yet was permitted to remain in the game.

Sounds like a 'loophole' (?) in the rules, but he really should have been ejected.

 

[DAG10]

apologies if already discussed, but I was surprised by the sequence with he dirty play by Omar Payne (the Flagrant foul and technical).

According to the rules, in short a F1 is 2 FT, and a F2 is 2 FT with player ejection.

Payne was hit with a F1 and Technical on the same sequence, yet was permitted to remain in the game.

Sounds like a 'loophole' (?) in the rules, but he really should have been ejected.

Here is the bigger issue in my mind...it happened in plain sight, and, should have been seen by Boroski, or, whoever was under the bucket...the fact that Purdue/Painter had to point it out and it still was missed, but, instead led to a technical on Williams, was pretty ridiculous.

A guy like that had a chance to hurt Stefanovic and potentially have him out of the game, and, draw a T at the same time on Williams (which could have been a foul that led to his having to leave the game as well)...so, a dude that is not very good and consciously commits a dirty foul was able to stay in the game.

I don't know the F1 vs F2 distinction...maybe they got that right, maybe not. I was not a fan of the crew in general, although, I don't think they were as bad as I had thought that they might be...and, they did let guys play at times.

 

[Esox54547]

apologies if already discussed, but I was surprised by the sequence with he dirty play by Omar Payne (the Flagrant foul and technical).

According to the rules, in short a F1 is 2 FT, and a F2 is 2 FT with player ejection.

Payne was hit with a F1 and Technical on the same sequence, yet was permitted to remain in the game.

Sounds like a 'loophole' (?) in the rules, but he really should have been ejected.

I think the F1 was the elbow to Sasha and the regular technical was for the stare down with Trevion

 

[Purdue85]

Here is the bigger issue in my mind...it happened in plain sight, and, should have been seen by Boroski, or, whoever was under the bucket...the fact that Purdue/Painter had to point it out and it still was missed, but, instead led to a technical on Williams, was pretty ridiculous.

A guy like that had a chance to hurt Stefanovic and potentially have him out of the game, and, draw a T at the same time on Williams (which could have been a foul that led to his having to leave the game as well)...so, a dude that is not very good and consciously commits a dirty foul was able to stay in the game.

I don't know the F1 vs F2 distinction...maybe they got that right, maybe not. I was not a fan of the crew in general, although, I don't think they were as bad as I had thought that they might be...and, they did let guys play at times.

You're spot on. There was an official coming down the sideline in front of the scorer's bench, and had the whole thing right in front of him. Looked like he was staring right at it. It took Painter throwing a fit to get him to do his d@mn job, but he waited for Tre to get involved resulting in the double T.

The F1 was the right call, Payne should have just been tossed with the combination. It looked like a gutless moment for the official.

 

[Purdue85]

I think the F1 was the elbow to Sasha and the regular technical was for the stare down with Trevion

That's correct, and what I was attempting to articulate. With both on the same sequence, it is suspect, at best, as to why a player would not be ejected.

 

[Esox54547]

That's correct, and what I was attempting to articulate. With both on the same sequence, it is suspect, at best, as to why a player would not be ejected.

I get ya, but I think they have to consider each offense separately. I don’t think there is any rule allowing for a combo penalty. I do agree that the refs should have caught it as it happened and stepped in right away instead of forcing Trevion to police the situation.

 

[Purdue85]

I get ya, but I think they have to consider each offense separately. I don’t think there is any rule allowing for a combo penalty. I do agree that the refs should have caught it as it happened and stepped in right away instead of forcing Trevion to police the situation.

Again, I get all that, and thought I sufficiently recognized it was "separate offenses", yet on the same sequence.

If an official is on top of the game and sees the F1 then IMMEDIATELY sees a confrontation for a technical, that's a judgement call, and that's my point. Unfortunately, they've become so passive they have to go to the monitor to assess the F1, then determine they're going to call the double technical. There's no way they're going to have the courage (or, maybe even the "standing" within the way the rules are stated) to take further action.

I don't know if I'm being too hard on the official (entirely possible), but it was a sequence demonstrating they just weren't in control of calling the game.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

I get your points 85, but I think it ended up being called correctly. In the end, I think it worked out better for us that way because Payne played more, and played pretty passively. Verdunk was the one that was really playing good defense.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Same Omar Payne who got tossed for a vicious elbow while at Florida?

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

I get 85's point, too, which I think is official's discretion.....they did seem to sort it out correctly under the rules.

One guess as to who was the official following the play on the wing right near CMP and immediately calling the double technical on Payne/Williams? It's winter - rhymes with "snow."

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Same Omar Payne who got tossed for a vicious elbow while at Florida?

Yes - he's a Lenny Special, tranfer portal pick-up this year. Ejected for a flagrant 2 (elbow) against Tennessee in the SEC Tournament last season.

 

[GoldandBlackintheSaddleAgain]

Same Omar Payne who got tossed for a vicious elbow while at Florida?

yeah

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Should have been ejected. I think the reason he wasn't is because Bo didn't see it real time. Dirty player, doesn't belong on that tough illini squad.

 

[bonefish1]

I liked how Tre came to the defense of SS. Was like an offensive lineman protecting his QB.
pretty weak T on Tre.

 

[jmohlman]

yeah

View embedded media

How classic, the fans are cheering him as he leaves the court

 

[Purdue85]

I get your points 85, but I think it ended up being called correctly. In the end, I think it worked out better for us that way because Payne played more, and played pretty passively. Verdunk was the one that was really playing good defense.

Thanks.

Again, for clarity, I'm not saying it was called incorrectly. Once play was stopped without ANY call (they had to go to the monitor to make both calls. WTH) they're stuck.

I simply think it's worth conversation whether or not a player involved in that type of interaction should be disqualified.

(I'll refer to the end of my post: Sounds like a 'loophole' (?) in the rules, but he really should have been ejected.)

 

[PUQBMan.]

Thanks.

Again, for clarity, I'm not saying it was called incorrectly. Once play was stopped without ANY call (they had to go to the monitor to make both calls. WTH) they're stuck.

I simply think it's worth conversation whether or not a player involved in that type of interaction should be disqualified.

(I'll refer to the end of my post: Sounds like a 'loophole' (?) in the rules, but he really should have been ejected.)

This is wrong. They didn’t have to go to the monitor to make both calls. They called the double technical in real time. The ref didn’t see the elbow at first, so they went to the monitor to review that (just like they do anytime there is a potential F1 or 2). A ref can’t and shouldn’t be able to just eject someone for the hell of it, and a player shouldn’t be ejected just because your feelings are hurt. He got a flagrant 1 (correct call) and a technical (correct call, although it was pretty weak that Tre got one as well). A F1 and a technical is not an ejection.

 

[mathboy]

Pain was clearly the aggressor during the confrontation with Williams. He continued to walk towards Williams as Williams backed up. Pain should have been tossed out of the game right there.

 

[Spinn]

Illinois seems to play a style of street ball. I won’t say they are dirty, but do a lot of little things that are questionable. Another good example was an offensive foul on Jaden where the defender grabbed Jadens arm and fell backwards, to make it look like he had pushed off.

 

[purduepat1969]

apologies if already discussed, but I was surprised by the sequence with he dirty play by Omar Payne (the Flagrant foul and technical).

According to the rules, in short a F1 is 2 FT, and a F2 is 2 FT with player ejection.

Payne was hit with a F1 and Technical on the same sequence, yet was permitted to remain in the game.

Sounds like a 'loophole' (?) in the rules, but he really should have been ejected.

I still haven't figured out why Tre got hit with a T on that. He apparently saw how egregious it was, while Bo stood there with his head up his @ss. Anyone who the saw the video recognizes how blatant and intentional that really was. And you expect a teammate not to call the guy out for it?

 

[purduepat1969]

This is wrong. They didn’t have to go to the monitor to make both calls. They called the double technical in real time. The ref didn’t see the elbow at first, so they went to the monitor to review that (just like they do anytime there is a potential F1 or 2). A ref can’t and shouldn’t be able to just eject someone for the hell of it, and a player shouldn’t be ejected just because your feelings are hurt. He got a flagrant 1 (correct call) and a technical (correct call, although it was pretty weak that Tre got one as well). A F1 and a technical is not an ejection.

The fact that he was hit with a technical foul, separately, on top of the F1 should mean disqualification, unless an F1 is not a "technical foul". That's what the OP is talking about.

And the F1 was NOT the correct call. If you watched the video, you'd see the elbow was clearly intentional and there's no mistaking that. An intentional elbow to the head should be grounds for an F2, which means ejection.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

The F1 was NOT the correct call. If you watched the video, you'd see the elbow was clearly intentional and there's no mistaking that. An intentional elbow to the head should be grounds for an F2, which means ejection. And the fact that he was hit with a technical foul, separately, on top of that should mean disqualification, unless an F1 is not a "technical foul"... That's what the OP is talking about.

Clearly, an F1 is not a technical foul. They discussed it for a long time and at least 2 of the refs were in the "highly experienced" category. I'm sure they got the rule right.

As to whether it was intentional or not, that's clearly a judgement call.

I also didn't see much from Tre to warrant him getting a T, but if he doesn't get one, Payne probably doesn't either and just gets the F1. Giving them both one clearly put Purdue at an advantage.

 

[purduepat1969]

Clearly, an F1 is not a technical foul. They discussed it for a long time and at least 2 of the refs were in the "highly experienced" category. I'm sure they got the rule right.

As to whether it was intentional or not, that's clearly a judgement call.

I also didn't see much from Tre to warrant him getting a T, but if he doesn't get one, Payne probably doesn't either and just gets the F1. Giving them both one clearly put Purdue at an advantage.

It may be a "judgement call". But it was a very bad judgement call.

As to an F1 not being considered a technical foul, that really needs to change. Because I don't know what's more unsportsmanlike, physically hurting someone or mouthing off to them...

 

[Purdue85]

The fact that he was hit with a technical foul, separately, on top of the F1 should mean disqualification, unless an F1 is not a "technical foul". That's what the OP is talking about.

And the F1 was NOT the correct call. If you watched the video, you'd see the elbow was clearly intentional and there's no mistaking that. An intentional elbow to the head should be grounds for an F2, which means ejection.

Yeah... you're spot on, but the the prior was more of an emotional rant toward me than reasonable discussion of the situation.

 

[Purdue85]

It may be a "judgement call". But it was a very bad judgement call.

As to an F1 not being considered a technical foul, that really needs to change. Because I don't know what's more unsportsmanlike, physically hurting someone or mouthing off to them...

All this gets to the heart of the point in my original post.

 

[PUQBMan.]

The fact that he was hit with a technical foul, separately, on top of the F1 should mean disqualification, unless an F1 is not a "technical foul". That's what the OP is talking about.

And the F1 was NOT the correct call. If you watched the video, you'd see the elbow was clearly intentional and there's no mistaking that. An intentional elbow to the head should be grounds for an F2, which means ejection.

Well, we already know that OP never knows what he is talking about. An F1 is not a technical foul, so no, it should not mean ejection. To your second paragraph, the definition of a flagrant 1 is as follows: "A flagrant 1 foul involves excessive or severe contact during a live ball, including especially when a player "swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders". This play was a textbook F1. It wasn't "extreme in nature (F2)". He didn't wind up and coldcock Sasha. Sasha barely even moved from the contact. He tried to sneakily hit Sasha with some contact and got caught.

 

[PurdueDave]

Well, we already know that OP never knows what he is talking about. An F1 is not a technical foul, so no, it should not mean ejection. To your second paragraph, the definition of a flagrant 1 is as follows: "A flagrant 1 foul involves excessive or severe contact during a live ball, including especially when a player "swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders". This play was a textbook F1. It wasn't "extreme in nature (F2)". He didn't wind up and coldcock Sasha. Sasha barely even moved from the contact. He tried to sneakily hit Sasha with some contact and got caught.

So only blows that knock you out are F2. Got it.

 

[Purdue85]

So only blows that knock you out are F2. Got it.

don't waste your time. I never claimed an F1 is an automatic technical. I clearly (and accurately) stated that Omar Payne was hit with an F1 and a technical. If I claimed an F1 was a technical, Omar would have been ejected without discussion.

It's all an angry, emotional screed directed toward me.

 

[PUQBMan.]

So only blows that knock you out are F2. Got it.

Not what I said at all. Please work on your reading comprehension. Do you think a light brush with a forearm/elbow warrants a flagrant 2? Some of you are so soft.

 

[PurdueDave]

don't waste your time. I never claimed an F1 is an automatic technical. I clearly (and accurately) stated that Omar Payne was hit with an F1 and a technical. If I claimed an F1 was a technical, Omar would have been ejected without discussion.

It's all an angry, emotional screed directed toward

Not what I said at all. Please work on your reading comprehension. Do you think a light brush with a forearm/elbow warrants a flagrant 2? Some of you are so soft.

That was an intentional blow to the head with the pointed end of an elbow. F2 every day as I read the rules. Sorry you think thugs should be allowed to intentionally try to hurt others and not be punished

 

[PUQBMan.]

don't waste your time. I never claimed an F1 is an automatic technical. I clearly (and accurately) stated that Omar Payne was hit with an F1 and a technical. If I claimed an F1 was a technical, Omar would have been ejected without discussion.

It's all an angry, emotional screed directed toward me.

1. Nothing you have said has even been stated clearly beyond the walls of your demented mind.
2. You inaccurately stated that "Once play was stopped without ANY call (they had to go to the monitor to make both calls. WTH)". You're wrong once again, but you'll never acknowledge it. 🤡

 

[PUQBMan.]

That was an intentional blow to the head with the pointed end of an elbow. F2 every day as I read the rules. Sorry you think thugs should be allowed to intentionally try to hurt others and not be punished

I agree, it was excessive or severe contact during a live ball, including especially when a player "swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders".

 

[PurdueDave]

I agree, it was excessive or severe contact during a live ball, including especially when a player "swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders".

When you don't even have the ball in your hands (or fighting for position underneath), that part of F1 really makes no sense. Only fist to the head is F2...got it.

 

[mathboy]

1. Nothing you have said has even been stated clearly beyond the walls of your demented mind.
2. You inaccurately stated that "Once play was stopped without ANY call (they had to go to the monitor to make both calls. WTH)". You're wrong once again, but you'll never acknowledge it. 🤡

Not sure where your beef is. The refs did not make the F1 call until they looked at the monitor. Unless... this is about the chili debate.

I think the double T was made before the paly stopped if I recall correctly. Pain was walking at Williams and both were probably saying words that warranted a technical. In my view, Pain was clearly the aggressor in the situation, but Williams provoked the confrontation after seeing the contact.

The OP brought out some interesting points, and I learned something from it.

 

[PUQBMan.]

When you don't even have the ball in your hands, that part of F1 really makes no sense. Only fist to the head is F2...got it.

Quit trying to put words into my mouth because you can't read the rules. I'm quoting directly from the rules. You can get a flagrant 1 with or without the ball in your hands. A flagrant 1 or 2 is not dependent on the body part that makes contact. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that. Toughen up, cupcake.

 

[PurdueDave]

Quit trying to put words into my mouth because you can't read the rules. I'm quoting directly from the rules. You can get a flagrant 1 with or without the ball in your hands. A flagrant 1 or 2 is not dependent on the body part that makes contact. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that. Toughen up, cupcake.

Did you see his F2 in the Florida game?

 

[PUQBMan.]

Did you see his F2 in the Florida game?

Yep that was pretty bad. Definitely met the criteria for extreme in nature.

 

[PurdueDave]

Yep that was pretty bad. Definitely met the criteria for extreme in nature.

The only difference I see is that Sasha is one tough dude and didn't go down. No knockout blow, so no F2 (I guess).

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Not what I said at all. Please work on your reading comprehension. Do you think a light brush with a forearm/elbow warrants a flagrant 2? Some of you are so soft.

LOL you need to watch that replay again. He tried to hurt him. The fact that he was only mildly successful matters not.

 

[PUQBMan.]

The only difference I see is that Sasha is one tough dude and didn't go down. No knockout blow, so no F2 (I guess).

If that’s the only difference you see between those two plays, then there’s no real discussion to be had here. Maybe the play you saw on Sasha looked a lot worse to you than it actually was. Maybe vice versa is true for me. Either way we can agree to disagree.