Wichita State at Illinois State on Sunday 7pm

[TylerDurden]

I agree this call was "total BS". It's BS, because a foul should have been called immediately. It's BS, because after reviewing the call, JC should've been ejected. I have no idea what was going through his head, but this was far from a basketball move, it was a dangerous kick to the chest of an opposing player. I like Carmichael, he's probably my favorite non-Aces player to watch in the league, but at best this was a bonehead move. At worst, this was a low-brow, classless cheap shot. After watching him play his whole career, I tend to believe it was a bonehead move, either way I think it still warranted an ejection. Come to think of it, we play ILSU next, so he should clearly be suspended for one game.

Plenty of flagrant fouls are assessed after the fact and in situations where no personal foul was originally called.

[ACECARD]

Did the foot actually connect above the shoulders. Looked like the foot contacted his chest on the way down?

That's the way I saw it.

[mvcfan]

Did the foot actually connect above the shoulders. Looked like the foot contacted his chest on the way down?

That's the way I saw it.

It doesn't matter where he kicked him. What if he had kicked him in the freakin Balls? Is that ok too? Have some common sense. It should have been a flagrant 2 and he should have been kicked out of the game.

[Aces0976]

Plenty of flagrant fouls are assessed after the fact and in situations where no personal foul was originally called.

The "BS" statement was referring to ILSU fans calling the call "BS". I have no issue with them reviewing the call, I was just saying the only points of argument that I can see is a personal foul not being called immediately on the play AND that after reviewing the play, I think you could argue that it should've been a flagrant 2. That's all......

[musiccitybulldog]

Did the foot actually connect above the shoulders. Looked like the foot contacted his chest on the way down?

That's the way I saw it.

It doesn't matter where he kicked him. What if he had kicked him in the freakin Balls? Is that ok too? Have some common sense. It should have been a flagrant 2 and he should have been kicked out of the game.

We were discussing this before the release of any replay media. But the talk was whether it was intentional or not, and was the foot on head as the rule stated. That is what the TV commentators were discussing also.

My take was he had control of the ball and was coming down with it and his foot connected with Cottons chest. I even said in a post I had not seen a relplay.

Of course if someone outwardly trys to harm someone it should be a technical and be removed.

I wonder why the call wasn't made initially, as the referee was watching directly? Did he think it was unintentional?

[cpacmel]

Really good game between 2 pretty evenly matched teams.

Shockers refused to go away and their will to win was very evident. Armstead hit some really huge shots.

It would be something if these teams meet again.....

[PantherSigEp]

Whether it was Jackie's intention to kick Cotton or not shouldn't matter when asking why the foul wasn't called right away. How many reach-ins, blocking and push-off fouls are "intentional"? Until the last minute or two of a game, 99% of fouls are not committed on purpose, and even then all of us as fans dispute how much of it was a "foul".

However, in all of my years of watching/participating in basketball, I cannot think of any instances where kicking someone in the chest/face/anywhere was NOT a foul. We can argue the intent, we can argue if it should have been a flagrant but for goodness sakes if you watch a replay of what happened and can confidently say that there is no way that was a foul and the refs were correct in letting play continue then please direct me to where I can purchase the hallucinogen that you are partaking in.

[Aces0976]

Whether it was Jackie's intention to kick Cotton or not shouldn't matter when asking why the foul wasn't called right away. How many reach-ins, blocking and push-off fouls are "intentional"? Until the last minute or two of a game, 99% of fouls are not committed on purpose, and even then all of us as fans dispute how much of it was a "foul".

However, in all of my years of watching/participating in basketball, I cannot think of any instances where kicking someone in the chest/face/anywhere was NOT a foul. We can argue the intent, we can argue if it should have been a flagrant but for goodness sakes if you watch a replay of what happened and can confidently say that there is no way that was a foul and the refs were correct in letting play continue then please direct me to where I can purchase the hallucinogen that you are partaking in.

[shocktheheart]

From the NCAA rule book:

Section 26. Fighting

Art. 7. When during the course of play (live ball), an individual strikes an
opponent with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a nonconfrontational
manner but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant 2 personal
foul and not a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an
opponent but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by
the official as to whether the contact is a flagrant 1 personal foul.

The refs were within their power to call a flagrant 1 foul. With what ESPN put on the screen (definition of flagrant fouls) I didn't think it could be a flagrant foul, but with this definition I believed they made the correct call.

[musiccitybulldog]

Good info