Rollo, did the Loyola get the shaft on the double technical?

[Smitty10]

So, Holmes gets fouled very hard and under normal circumstances, going to the line for 2 throws. But it was such a mugging that they T up the defender. Holmes goes after defender and gets T'd up also(let's forget that Amzil pushed guy in back and didn't get T'd, that's not part of my rules question).

So Holmes goes to the line to shoot the normal FTs, misses the first and makes the second(I'm putting this in here because I want to ask another question that pertains to this situation after my main point).

Now they go to other side of court and let Loyola shoot their two Technical FTs. And then they go back to Dayton's side and Amzil shoots two Technical FTs.

Without the double Ts, Holmes shoots two FTs and then possession goes to Loyola(in theory). So shouldn't Loyola get possession in this case? They gave it to the Flyers.

Okay, on to my second question, which is why the rule is that the regular FTs are shot before the Ts in this exact scenario? Wouldn't it be better to shoot the Ts first and here's why? We really don't know who would've gotten possession if Holmes misses the 2nd FT. Both teams have a chance for a rebound. If you shoot them after the Ts, it allows for the normal process of shooting FTs and if the last one is missed, a fight for the rebound.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 So, Holmes gets fouled very hard and under normal circumstances, going to the line for 2 throws. But it was such a mugging that they T up the defender. Holmes goes after defender and gets T'd up also(let's forget that Amzil pushed guy in back and didn't get T'd, that's not part of my rules question). So Holmes goes to the line to shoot the normal FTs, misses the first and makes the second(I'm putting this in here because I want to ask another question that pertains to this situation after my main point). Now they go to other side of court and let Loyola shoot their two Technical FTs. And then they go back to Dayton's side and Amzil shoots two Technical FTs. Without the double Ts, Holmes shoots two FTs and then possession goes to Loyola(in theory). So shouldn't Loyola get possession in this case? They gave it to the Flyers. Okay, on to my second question, which is why the rule is that the regular FTs are shot before the Ts in this exact scenario? Wouldn't it be better to shoot the Ts first and here's why? We really don't know who would've gotten possession if Holmes misses the 2nd FT. Both teams have a chance for a rebound. If you shoot them after the Ts, it allows for the normal process of shooting FTs and if the last one is missed, a fight for the rebound.

Clayton raised this question in another thread and I answered it...here we go again.

When there is a double foul/technical, the post-FT possession goes to the team in possession of the ball at the time of the double fouls. Holmes was going to shoot FTs so UD had possession and, therefore, gets the ball.

FTs are shot in the order of how things happened. So it went Holmes FTs...Loyola FTs...Amzil FTs....UD ball at the spot closest to the infraction(s).

For the life of me I don't know why Amzil wasn't given a T for pushing the Loyola player. Any dead ball aggression is (supposedly) an automatic infraction...and potential ejection. I guess A10 refs really do suck.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by rollo Clayton raised this question in another thread and I answered it...here we go again. When there is a double foul/technical, the post-FT possession goes to the team in possession of the ball at the time of the double fouls. Holmes was going to shoot FTs so UD had possession and, therefore, gets the ball. FTs are shot in the order of how things happened. So it went Holmes FTs...Loyola FTs...Amzil FTs....UD ball at the spot closest to the infraction(s). For the life of me I don't know why Amzil wasn't given a T for pushing the Loyola player. Any dead ball aggression is (supposedly) an automatic infraction...and potential ejection. I guess A10 refs really do suck.

Okay, thanks for the answer. Sure seems that the team that was fouled gets an extra prize in this situation. Seems the rule isn't fair, but it is what it is.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

I am guilty of overthinking what I already knew, though as Smitty says almost seems unfair for UD to have got the ball back after the two foul shots awarded for the original foul. Guess I have just not seen this scenario before. Thank you Rollo

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by rollo Clayton raised this question in another thread and I answered it...here we go again. When there is a double foul/technical, the post-FT possession goes to the team in possession of the ball at the time of the double fouls. Holmes was going to shoot FTs so UD had possession and, therefore, gets the ball. FTs are shot in the order of how things happened. So it went Holmes FTs...Loyola FTs...Amzil FTs....UD ball at the spot closest to the infraction(s). For the life of me I don't know why Amzil wasn't given a T for pushing the Loyola player. Any dead ball aggression is (supposedly) an automatic infraction...and potential ejection. I guess A10 refs really do suck.

Agree that Amzil probably could have been T’d up but there was lots of pushing on both sides during/after the scrum- so where do you stop issuing technicals?The question i have is why wasn’t Welch given a Flagrant 2 and ejected- which i think he should have been? Or is that only reserved for head contact? Seems locking arms and then pushing/throwing to the ground could have resulted in serious injury to Holmes.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 Agree that Amzil probably could have been T’d up but there was lots of pushing on both sides during/after the scrum- so where do you stop issuing technicals?

You don't stop issuing technicals until all the infractions are identified and penalized. Good officials always have a small notepad/pencil in their back pocket just in case a bench clearing brawl happens and you need to take a few steps back and start writing down #s and taking notes.

The ref in me noted how fast our assistants jumped up to block any bench players from entering the court when the pushing started. That coaching decision saved the night in more ways than the final score.

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 The question i have is why wasn’t Welch given a Flagrant 2 and ejected- which i think he should have been? Or is that only reserved for head contact? Seems locking arms and then pushing/throwing to the ground could have resulted in serious injury to Holmes.

Flagrant 2s have to go way beyond what we saw last night...there has to be a real and/or intentional attempt to injure someone for a ref to raise their call to an F2. IMHO, everything was handled appropriately.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by rollo . Good officials .

TV Teddy was in the house, enough said.

If he is so great why do we not see him on TV every night doing Big 10 games?

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by rollo When there is a double foul/technical, the post-FT possession goes to the team in possession of the ball at the time of the double fouls. Holmes was going to shoot FTs so UD had possession and, therefore, gets the ball.

This makes total sense for a standard possession.

It does not make sense to me when it is free throws. Free throws conclude with the other team getting the ball on a make or an up for grabs rebound with a miss.

I'm not saying the refs got it wrong, but IMO the rule is wrong/unfair. The technical free throws should have been shot first and then possession given to Flyers (because we had possession at the time of the double Ts) which in this case would be Holmes shooting free throws with rebounders and play resuming like normal.

We somehow got the two free throws PLUS another possession.

[Bill McPeek]

At first, I thought Welch from Loyola committed the personal foul on Deuce and then also the technical foul. That was incorrect, the personal foul was committed by another Loyola player then Welch committed the technical. The technical foul was Welch's 4th. If he had committed both personal foul and the technical foul, he would have been disqualified. I do not understand why Amzil was not whistled for a T.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by superfan99 This makes total sense for a standard possession. It does not make sense to me when it is free throws. Free throws conclude with the other team getting the ball on a make or an up for grabs rebound with a miss. I'm not saying the refs got it wrong, but IMO the rule is wrong/unfair. The technical free throws should have been shot first and then possession given to Flyers (because we had possession at the time of the double Ts) which in this case would be Holmes shooting free throws with rebounders and play resuming like normal. We somehow got the two free throws PLUS another possession.

Well, actually, being fouled and a double tech, we got 4 free throws PLUS another possession. It's like we got 3 possessions to their one. And yes, the part I and then you alluded to, in a fair basketball universe, the floor foul FTs would take place after the technical FTs.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by superfan99 This makes total sense for a standard possession. It does not make sense to me when it is free throws. Free throws conclude with the other team getting the ball on a make or an up for grabs rebound with a miss. I'm not saying the refs got it wrong, but IMO the rule is wrong/unfair. The technical free throws should have been shot first and then possession given to Flyers (because we had possession at the time of the double Ts) which in this case would be Holmes shooting free throws with rebounders and play resuming like normal. We somehow got the two free throws PLUS another possession.

I understand your thought pattern but to really understand the application of the rules in this weird situation, you need to read the rulebook and understand the definitions of everything that is applied.

FTs are irrelevant...it's all about 'team control'. I don't use definitions and try to word explanations in plain english to make it more easily understood. If you ever want to be confused, try attending a Rules Interpretation meeting some time...UGH! May as well be discssed in Latin.

Regardless, who gets the ball after a double-T all comes down to 'team control' at the time they were called. 'Team control' encompasses any and all situations and makes applying the Rules easier since you don't have to look for caviats like FTs, injuries, cheerleader ejections, fans on the court, etc...

[superfan99]

Hopefully Elam and the TBT improve upon this like they did the endings of games. lol.

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by rollo I understand your thought pattern but to really understand the application of the rules in this weird situation, you need to read the rulebook and understand the definitions of everything that is applied. FTs are irrelevant...it's all about 'team control'. I don't use definitions and try to word explanations in plain english to make it more easily understood. If you ever want to be confused, try attending a Rules Interpretation meeting some time...UGH! May as well be discssed in Latin. Regardless, who gets the ball after a double-T all comes down to 'team control' at the time they were called. 'Team control' encompasses any and all situations and makes applying the Rules easier since you don't have to look for caviats like FTs, injuries, cheerleader ejections, fans on the court, etc...

I guess it is sort of like the rare...off the ball defensive rebounding foul when the shot goes in. The offensive team gets the points and then gets the ball back for a new possession.

The double technical during free throws is definitely a strange rule situation.

[Smitty10]

While we're discussing rules that aren't fair, I thought maybe this is a good place and time to bring up another peeve I have. I hate the rule that when there is duel possession called, and the team that was offense has the possession arrow, they are still only given what's left on the shot clock. Like if there's only one second on the shot clock, that's all they're given and they lose the possession arrow. At the very least they should be given a choice, use up the possession arrow and have 1 second to get a shot off, or forfeit the possession and keep the arrow.

I also hate the fact that a team can call timeout before getting the ball over the halfcourt line and get the full 10 seconds again.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 While we're discussing rules that aren't fair, I thought maybe this is a good place and time to bring up another peeve I have. I hate the rule that when there is duel possession called, and the team that was offense has the possession arrow, they are still only given what's left on the shot clock. Like if there's only one second on the shot clock, that's all they're given and they lose the possession arrow. At the very least they should be given a choice, use up the possession arrow and have 1 second to get a shot off, or forfeit the possession and keep the arrow. I also hate the fact that a team can call timeout before getting the ball over the halfcourt line and get the full 10 seconds again.

College basketball changed this a few years back. If you call a timeout at 7 seconds into the 10 second count, you only get 3 seconds to get that ball past half court after the TO.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 College basketball changed this a few years back. If you call a timeout at 7 seconds into the 10 second count, you only get 3 seconds to get that ball past half court after the TO.

Well, I remember a game this year where UD got screwed then. Announcers alluded to our opponent only having 1 second to inbound the ball and get it over half court line. The were about 10 feet short of the line from where they inbounded. They passed the ball backward and then play was stopped and the refs said they called timeout. Then they did the same thing after the timeout and took at least 3 or 4 seconds to get the ball over the line. When it was brought up here, the conclusion was the time out gave them more time.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 College basketball changed this a few years back. If you call a timeout at 7 seconds into the 10 second count, you only get 3 seconds to get that ball past half court after the TO.

Okay, found the thread started right after the BYU game. I detailed what happened or what I thought happened on post #5 and accepted it after someone said the rule was a reset in post #6(I think). Anyway here it is: http://www.udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36255

Rollo, since you were on sabbatical when this took place, if you can read my description in post #5 and give us a definitive answer, it would be appreciated.

Also, please ignore post #3 lol

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by Bill McPeek At first, I thought Welch from Loyola committed the personal foul on Deuce and then also the technical foul. That was incorrect, the personal foul was committed by another Loyola player then Welch committed the technical. The technical foul was Welch's 4th. If he had committed both personal foul and the technical foul, he would have been disqualified. I do not understand why Amzil was not whistled for a T.

Who committed the personal foul because there was no one else even near Holmes and Welch did pretty much mug him?

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 College basketball changed this a few years back. If you call a timeout at 7 seconds into the 10 second count, you only get 3 seconds to get that ball past half court after the TO.

This has been very confusing for the last few years with announcers saying different things and it being called differently in different games too. I can't ever seem to find the actual rule so if someone can find it and post it that would be great.

I thought the last someone on the board said is if it is knocked out of bounds in the backcourt by the defense that the count continues from where it was, but a timeout by the offense does reset the count.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Well, I remember a game this year where UD got screwed then. Announcers alluded to our opponent only having 1 second to inbound the ball and get it over half court line. The were about 10 feet short of the line from where they inbounded. They passed the ball backward and then play was stopped and the refs said they called timeout. Then they did the same thing after the timeout and took at least 3 or 4 seconds to get the ball over the line. When it was brought up here, the conclusion was the time out gave them more time.

Originally Posted by CT Flyer This has been very confusing for the last few years with announcers saying different things and it being called differently in different games too. I can't ever seem to find the actual rule so if someone can find it and post it that would be great. I thought the last someone on the board said is if it is knocked out of bounds in the backcourt by the defense that the count continues from where it was, but a timeout by the offense does reset the count.

I apologize, in my quick research, you both are correct. That is what I get for listening to announcers. If the team calls a TO the clock does indeed reset. If it is just knocked out of bounds and goes to a media timeout, it does not reset.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 I apologize, in my quick research, you both are correct. That is what I get for listening to announcers. If the team calls a TO the clock does indeed reset. If it is just knocked out of bounds and goes to a media timeout, it does not reset.

Okay, that does explain, a little what took place in that BYU game. Except the fact that the Refs let them have a do-over(that word is getting used a lot lately lol) because the shot clock said 30 after the media time out. Then I believe BYU took another timeout to get the clock reset.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by CT Flyer Who committed the personal foul because there was no one else even near Holmes and Welch did pretty much mug him?

I looked it up, Alston committed the foul. I thought the same thing Bill thought: Welch was charged for both a personal and technical foul, not so though.

[st marys]

I was surprised Holmes got the tech vs Amzil. Holmes looked like he was shrugging the guy off of him (who had just hooked his arm and pushed him in the side/back), but nothing egregious, compared to the shove by Amzil.

[rollo]

To further explain, the college rule says the offense has 10 seconds of 'continuous' possession to get the ball over midcourt. That's one clarification that is largely misunderstood. For instance, a tipped ball does not constitute a 'change of' possession. So in the case that Malachi gets the ball stripped from behind while dribbling in the backcourt, and the ball is knocked out of bounds, UD still has 'continuous' possession, and the count continues where it left off after the throw-in.

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by ud2 I looked it up, Alston committed the foul. I thought the same thing Bill thought: Welch was charged for both a personal and technical foul, not so though.

I obviously believe you because you looked it up, so if that is the case it was a mistake by the officials.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by CT Flyer I obviously believe you because you looked it up, so if that is the case it was a mistake by the officials.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...meId/401484459

Alston is the only one listed for a foul charge at 5:51 left in the 2nd half. I agree, I have no idea how Alston was charged with the foul, he wasn't even part of the play. It was just Holmes and Welch getting tangled up.

Rollo?

[88flyer]

Originally Posted by st marys I was surprised Holmes got the tech vs Amzil. Holmes looked like he was shrugging the guy off of him (who had just hooked his arm and pushed him in the side/back), but nothing egregious, compared to the shove by Amzil.

I believe they said it was something Holmes said, not something he did…
Posted via Mobile Device

[ud2]

The only thing I can think of is that the refs did not want to disqualify Welch in a tight game down the stretch, so the refs weaseled out and charged Alston. That would have been Welch's 4th and 5th foul.

And I have no idea why Amzil was not t'd up for shoving Welch in the back.

Don't give me this crap that refs never screw up rollo.

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by ud2 The only thing I can think of is that the refs did not want to disqualify Welch in a tight game down the stretch, so the refs weaseled out and charged Alston. That would have been Welch's 4th and 5th foul. And I have no idea why Amzil was not t'd up for shoving Welch in the back. Don't give me this crap that refs never screw up rollo.

After further review, I just watched the video and Alston does definitely reach in on the play, so I apologize to the refs, I guess they did get it right.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by rollo For the life of me I don't know why Amzil wasn't given a T for pushing the Loyola player. Any dead ball aggression is (supposedly) an automatic infraction...and potential ejection. I guess A10 refs really do suck.

I'm glad he did stuck up for Holmes. He's done that several times this year. Someone on the team needs to show some actual backbone, and not let them get pushed around.

The irony is that he does tend to end up on the ground a lot.

The team has been getting increasingly "chippy" the past 5-6 games.

[Bill McPeek]

Originally Posted by CT Flyer After further review, I just watched the video and Alston does definitely reach in on the play, so I apologize to the refs, I guess they did get it right.

I did the same and came to the conclusion that Alston indeed was the player who committed the personal foul as he reached in and hacked Deuce. Deuce and Welch got tangled up and Welch kind of "pushed" Deuce and Deuce reacted.

[Marysville Flyer]

Originally Posted by ClaytonFlyerFan TV Teddy was in the house, enough said. If he is so great why do we not see him on TV every night doing Big 10 games?

TV Ted twice early had to go to the monitor after he blew the whistle and at least once he had to figure out who the foul was on. It sure looked like he had no clue on the second one either. Not sure I have ever seem that before.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

Originally Posted by ud2 The only thing I can think of is that the refs did not want to disqualify Welch in a tight game down the stretch, so the refs weaseled out and charged Alston. That would have been Welch's 4th and 5th foul. And I have no idea why Amzil was not t'd up for shoving Welch in the back. Don't give me this crap that refs never screw up rollo.

This Bud's for you, ud2. Lots of videos and pretty colors. Good luck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYlvE_kKUc

[ud2]

Originally Posted by rollo This Bud's for you, ud2. Lots of videos and pretty colors. Good luck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYlvE_kKUc

I am very skeptical rollo. I don't think the foul was on Alston. I would like to see the replay. The refs missed the Amzil shove also.

[Radar]

I thought in the case of double techs they default to the possession arrow to determine who gets the ball, but it's good to see they applied the rule correctly despite TV Ted being involved.

PS. The entire situation took waaaaaaaay too long to sort out. What am I saying (see TV Ted comment above)?

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Jeff I'm glad he did stuck up for Holmes. He's done that several times this year. Someone on the team needs to show some actual backbone, and not let them get pushed around. The irony is that he does tend to end up on the ground a lot. The team has been getting increasingly "chippy" the past 5-6 games.

That's my favorite part of Mustapha. Anytime someone tries to start a fight with our guys, he tries to Finnish it.

[ud2]

I did not dvr the game last night, and the CBS All Access app does not have CBS Sports Network game replays. However, Fubo TV just added a feature that replays the last 72 hours of programming on all? of the channels that they provide. Fubo does provide CBSSN. So, I did find a replay of last night's game on Fubo. However, the replay doesn't offer fast forward, so you have to watch the whole da*n game or record your screen for the whole thing. I will likely record only the relevant portion and post it on YouTube.

[Southwest]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 That's my favorite part of Mustapha. Anytime someone tries to start a fight with our guys, he tries to Finnish it.

I see what you did there…😜😜

[st marys]

Here is Jablonski's view of the Tech's from twitter

https://twitter.com/DavidPJablonski/...YvOA-4ToXCpYcA

[Flyer 86]

Unpopular opinion perhaps but just looked again.

Loyola guy reaches down on ball swipe. Its agressive but legit play..
Guys get hooked. Partially caused by Daron.
DaRon overreacts and pushes guys arms pretty hard.
Loyola player walks away.

Holmes backs off.

On the Amzil part of the play I think if he had pushed a little harder refs would need to have called that. Think it was a normal reaction imo and not overly aggressive. So they let it go.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by rollo FTs are shot in the order of how things happened. So it went Holmes FTs...Loyola FTs...Amzil FTs....UD ball at the spot closest to the infraction(s).

Wait, I just reread this part. If FTs are shot in the order things happened, shouldn't the FTs have been shot in this order: Holmes-Amzil-Loyola? Because unless I missed something, the first Technical was on Welsh and then DaRon on his response to it. So Amzil (since that's who we chose to shoot them) should've shot his FTs prior to Loyola?

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Wait, I just reread this part. If FTs are shot in the order things happened, shouldn't the FTs have been shot in this order: Holmes-Amzil-Loyola? Because unless I missed something, the first Technical was on Welsh and then DaRon on his response to it. So Amzil (since that's who we chose to shoot them) should've shot his FTs prior to Loyola?

I have 0 interest in rehashing things we've rehashed...regardless, since I like Smitty, and working backwards, I'm assuming that the FTs were shot in the 'order' they were called. Further clarification can be directed at TV Teddy.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by rollo This Bud's for you, ud2. Lots of videos and pretty colors. Good luck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYlvE_kKUc

Yeah, yeah, yeah, my ears are burning. Upon further review, see below, the refs did make the correct call by charging Alston, not Welch, when Loyola fouled Holmes. However, as you yourself said, I fail to see why they let Amzil off the hook by not t'ing him. Incidental contact I guess.

I got interrupted when I was making these videos, so had to do 2 videos. That Fubo tv is really nice having the Lookback game replays for 72 hours after the game is over. Pain in the butt to make a video when the replay won't rewind or fast forward though IMO. Just wanted to see if I could figure out how to make videos off of that.

+ YouTube Video

+ YouTube Video

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by ud2 https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...meId/401484459 Alston is the only one listed for a foul charge at 5:51 left in the 2nd half. I agree, I have no idea how Alston was charged with the foul, he wasn't even part of the play. It was just Holmes and Welch getting tangled up. Rollo?

I thought the same thing at the time and the conspiratorial conclusion I came to was that it would have been Welch's 5th with the personal and the technical. Unless you can't foul out on a technical foul, I don't know.

I think Holmes got his T for "magic words."

[longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Flyer 86 Loyola guy reaches down on ball swipe. Its agressive but legit play.. Guys get hooked. Partially caused by Daron. DaRon overreacts and pushes guys arms pretty hard. Loyola player walks away. Holmes backs off.

I don't know what you're looking at. I wouldn't exactly call it a legit play. This was just another of the many muggings Holmes endured the entire game. I don't know how you can say the hooked arms was partially caused by Holmes. The guy was all over Holmes and had his arm wrapped around Holmes' arm. And the guy shoved Holmes at the same time Holmes shoved him.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan I don't know what you're looking at. I wouldn't exactly call it a legit play. This was just another of the many muggings Holmes endured the entire game. I don't know how you can say the hooked arms was partially caused by Holmes. The guy was all over Holmes and had his arm wrapped around Holmes' arm. And the guy shoved Holmes at the same time Holmes shoved him.

Also, the part about the Loyola player (Welsh I assume) walked away. When I saw replays it didn't look that innocent. It looked more like someone who egged another on and when his victim retaliates, quickly turns around and acts innocent so the ref/cop only sees the retaliation.

[Flyer 86]

Originally Posted by longtimefan I don't know what you're looking at. I wouldn't exactly call it a legit play. This was just another of the many muggings Holmes endured the entire game. I don't know how you can say the hooked arms was partially caused by Holmes. The guy was all over Holmes and had his arm wrapped around Holmes' arm. And the guy shoved Holmes at the same time Holmes shoved him.

Just rewatxhed to verify and seee.

Amazing how two camera angles show different things. On the under the basket camera, you don't see well at all the push by Wsee. In fact it's batekt there. But the front view from side of court Camera Welch push is dramatic and present.

So my bad. The strip though i still submit was fine. It's everything after that was the problem

[sheg]

I don't care what the rule IS but what it should be is that pushing a player, arms fully extended, like Welch did, should warrant ejection from the game.

[rollo]

Like Amzil?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Radar]

Originally Posted by rollo Like Amzil? Posted via Mobile Device

Yes. However, had TV been on the ball an immediate T or flagrant on Welch possibly prevents Amzil getting involved…perhaps. But I have less of a problem with him coming to Deuce’s defense and getting bounced for it than for what Welch did. I’m watching Mason vs Loyola now and you can tell Valentine has Izzo’s stink all over him from his days there. Welch and Golden are abusing Mason’s big men with hips and subtle shoves. They’ve got the depth to do it and they’re getting away with it. When the talent catches up they’re going to be a load.

Oh, and they’re matchbox size gym is packed to the rafters for a 7-14 team.
Posted via Mobile Device