Good win

We won and that’s all that matters! It was pretty ugly and ragged. Hogs win!
Kingsley played huge. The best game he’s had all year.

Very fortunate the way we played…Bad call went our way for a change.

That was not a bad call, it is just a stupid rule. The guy extended both hands and shoved without trying to make a play on the ball. Correct call based on the wimpy rule.

Make up call for Dickie V’s statements last Saturday :wink:

I thought Dustin Thomas was the difference, one of his better games this year.

You never know who it is going to be on this team. Thomas really helped, while Macon struggled. Barford played about like always, mostly really, really good, but a few minutes of bad.

The Hogs beat a good team that played a great game.

I think the F1 foul on Barford was legit. The trip was incidental, but if you watch the replay, he pushed Barford as he was going down. Not a lot, but I think that is what got the F1. The rules for a F1 includes “pushing from behind”. Which the Seton Hall player did.

Who cares! Great win on a day our guards were shooting poorly. Moses and Thomas won this game.


Response: that was not a bad call, plus the officials went to the monitor, Bradford was pushed and tripped the refs got it right. The hawgs continues on

The CBS crew said it was a legit call because he didn’t reach for the ball, if he his hands were reversed, his right hand on shoulder and left hand on stomach, it would have been a common foul.

Comments: clearly Thomas play got stronger as the game went on. The hawgs will need strong play from our 4’s and 5 in the next game… Our guards did okay but they have to be the difference going forward

It was a great win especially considering we got nothing from our bench except for Macon’s 7 points, 5 boards and 2 steals. We will have to get more help from the bench if we want to have any chance to win against NC.

Moses was amazing in this game, as was Barford. Moses with 23 points (on just 13 shot attempts) and 4 huge blocks. Barford with 20 points and a team leading 7 boards and 4 huge steals. This game was his best defensive game this year.

Bardford is coming to the stage to play! Thomas started rough but made a huge block and hit a few outside shots. He also had caught an assist from Dusty under the the hole he converted. Best game he’s played. Macon was pressing today as well as Beard. Dusty played well and hit a couple of 3’s! As a team we seemed to not make the 3 a big part of the offense today.
Our defense gave up open shots because their focus was down low on the big man!
When we had to get stops we got them. This team knows how to win a close game.
They need to learn to build leads.

Thank goodness! Will take a win any day.

NC won’t be worried of what they saw from us today and hopefully that plays to our advantage

Somebody tell that CBS radio guy who called our guys thugs Sunday and hoped we lost in the first round that it was Arkansas 77, Seton Hall 71 thanks to a late Flagrant foul by a Seton Hall “thug” (not that I think the Seton Hall guy is one, but the same measure he used on the Hogs he should use for everybody else that commits a flagrant foul).

It’s the same rule that if someone is driving in for an otherwise uncontested layup and the defender shoves him in the back to stop the layup, they’ll call an intentional/flagrant foul. I had one of those called on me in a junior high game 40+ years ago (and deserved the intentional). You have to make a play for the ball. He didn’t. Would have been the same if he’d grabbed Barford around the waist instead of shoving him. It isn’t a new rule, and it isn’t wimpy. You have to play the ball, not the man; kinda like pass interference in football.

Come on Swine, I played a long time ago too, and fouling without going for the ball was old hat in the 70s. It’s no worse than fouling hard to stop a sure made basket, and until about ten years ago every one just treated it like any normal end-of-game situation. The kind of play we saw a the end of the game today happened constantly at all levels, and there was never a flagrant foul call absent something weird( I was on the court one time when one of my team mates over did it and grabbed the guy and then flung him into our bench. My team mate got tossed, there were three or four techs called, and there was no post game handshake line).

An" intentional "foul should not be a flagrant foul, absent an elbow or fist thrown, undercutting a guy, or other really dangerous or malicious acts. The problem with the rule now is that it takes away the ref’s discretion on intent and infers some great evil in doing what every one knows has to be done when it is done without the pretense of making it look good.

Grabbing a guy or shoving him a little is not an inherently unsafe play. The refs, for all their faults, have to be given the latitude to decide what is a really dirty play and what is just part of the end of games.

The rule as it is interpreted now is a triumph of fake concern about player safety over the reality of basketball-all thirteen men on the court(and almost every one watching) know that the foul has nothing to do with the ball and everything to do with the clock. Fouling to stop the clock is and always has been a part of the game. The wimpy part of it is the silliness over making a play on the ball. There was nothing dirty about the Seton Hall guy shoving to foul, it just looked bad because it was accompanied by a trip,which was impossible for any one to foresee.

It cracks me up when people object to calling the rulebook as it’s written. If it’s a bad rule, change it, but until they do, call it as it’s written. It’s not a bad rule. They don’t want people grabbing dribblers, or pushing them in the back in the open floor. You gotta at least pretend to make a play for the ball. While it is true that a lot more flagrant-1s could be called late in games, for the most part in late-game situations the fouling player at least pretends to go for the ball. You can swipe at the ball, hit the arm, get the call and stop the clock, but if you push the dribbler in the back, or grab them around the waist, the rule says it’s a flagrant-1. For once, a call like this goes in our favor.

I’m not debating you on the “correct” call as written. My comments were you see that exact play at the end of almost every game. It, by rule, should be a flagrant every time. It’s not. Usually when you see them push from behind the guy doesn’t hit the deck, it’s a quick grab. Barford tripping is what made it look so bad at full speed, that’s why they reviewed it. If, Barford wouldn’t have tripped, they would have stayed with the common foul, which is what they originally called (also by rule). It was the review where they could tell it fit the flagrant rule.

At the end of games you don’t see 2 hands with a obvious push in the back!
You are siding with Kentucky and Matt Jones that the unsportsmanlike conduct from Monk was no big deal and what our players was is dirty !
It is all the same.

I’ve seen that same push, 4 times since it happened to Barford. It wasn’t called flagrant because they didn’t trip and fall. The play was originally called a common foul (all five times), the difference was the trip. The trip made it look WAAAAAY worse than what it was. When you look at full speed, it looked like he shoved him to the ground, that’s not what happened. The review was because of the fall, not the push. They ruled the reason Barford fell was incidental contact, the issue (why they called flagrant) was because the rule says the push itself is a flagrant. If Barford would not have tripped and went to the floor, they wouldn’t have reviewed that call and left it at a common foul. You and everyone else on here can argue all day long, but the trip was what got the play reviewed, and yes you see it EVERY GAME that teams are trying to prolong the game because they have a chance. They even said yesterday that every foul at the end of the game is intentional and would fall under the flagrant rule. That was said by one of the ESPN guys, that said it WAS the right call.

Now, no one is saying it wasn’t a flagrant or that it should not have been called, not once did I or anyone else say that, what I said was if Barford doesn’t trip that would not have been called flagrant 1.