deliberate nut punch should be flagrant 2

Sign up, and you'll be able to vote in polls. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Mar 22, 2025
10:21:04pm

LMeyer Contributor

deliberate nut punch should be flagrant 2

Anything else, common foul or no call

Report problem with this ad

LMeyer

Previous username: scrogdog39
Bio page: LMeyer
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Last login: Mar 25, 2025
Total posts: 581 (0 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Baker’s nut jab: what’s your take? I thought the call was ridiculous because

monteburns

Mar 22, 10:17pm

Horrible call. Maaaaaaaaaybe a foul. A flagrant 2??? No chance

RGGeemer

Mar 22, 10:18pm

What’s wild is they called a foul on the defender until Dwight shrute’s cousin

titlecoug

Mar 22, 10:18pm

MOSE!

VinnyBYU

Mar 22, 10:24pm

Freaking Mose

Born2Fish

Mar 22, 11:00pm

Seems obvious that's the case. Yet the refs saw "clearly NOT incidental contact"

The Dark Knight

Mar 22, 10:18pm

Then the reffing expert on the broadcast says it was incidental

stoils

Mar 22, 10:25pm

This: Refs had to determine it was clearly non-incidental, which is what they...

CougaReb

Mar 22, 10:36pm

I used to think you're crazy, but ...

Bob Vance

Mar 22, 10:19pm

I’m fine with a flagrant 1. Flagrant 2 was criminal.

TPcoug

Mar 22, 10:19pm

My understanding it has to be a no call or a flagrant 2 in that situation. They need a modifier for incidental contact

Osteotome

Mar 22, 10:20pm

It wasn’t a flagrant of any sort. 2nd defender pushing him into own guys nuts?

Rexy Coug

Mar 22, 10:21pm

I don’t think it should have been called. Just saying if you HAVE to call it

TPcoug

Mar 22, 10:24pm

Watch it closely, the player that got hit deliberately leans his crotch forward

Zerigke Ally Zerigke

Mar 22, 10:20pm

Intentional elbow, unintentional target. Dumb rule. Shouldn't have called it anything.

supertux

Mar 22, 10:20pm

deliberate nut punch should be flagrant 2

LMeyer

Mar 22, 10:21pm

Dumb rule maybe the way it is written, but Good call.

WizeGuise

Mar 22, 10:22pm

No it wasn’t not even by the rule book

BYU '80

Mar 22, 10:23pm

It was incidental contact on a normal basketball play. Shouldn’t have been a

MisterFundamentals

Mar 22, 10:23pm

It was clearly incidental.

JuicyJam

Mar 22, 10:25pm

The problem is. According to the rules any contact to the groin that isn’t 100%

Powerbait DPM

Mar 22, 10:32pm

It was accidental. Clearly. What makes you think there was any intent to hit him

Rexy Coug

Mar 22, 10:42pm

Yup I think so too. The problem was the direct contact after bending down.

Powerbait DPM

Mar 22, 10:46pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad