• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Whats going on?

Da Coach said:
I have to side with the player in this situation. They are the ones putting everything on the line physically and emotionally. An assistant coach, especially a first year, low-level assistant, should definitely have kept quiet and not tried to further provoke a player who was just involved in a physical skirmish on the court. Andrew is as nice a guy, and as mild mannered as any D1 player. For him to react, and I did not see or hear him say anything, is forgiveable. I think any player would have reacted the way AW did.
Click to expand...


You always side with the player...when it's BU:D....that's fine..Regardless what an asst. says I don't think any player BU or whatever should be telling a coach to shut the &%$# up.......Nobody knows what the asst even said. For all we know he's a nice guy that errored in judgement....AW is a nice guy too but it doesn't mean they can't have poor judgement once in a while.
 
lefty, I don't want players who are so meek (we already lack toughness), and I don't want players who back down when other coaches use intimidation tactics. I see nothing wrong with the way AW reacted. It's not like he started the conflict, or escalated it, reacted physically, or is a dirty player. He told the Creighton assistant exactly what he should have done. Maybe his words were a little coarse, but that is about the only thing I could see anyone objecting to.
 
You know whatever happened on the court happened, but what warren said in the paper about the coach not getting his lunch or nap, not exactly impressed, that is rubbing insult to injury. a "no comment" would have been much classier, especially after a win.
 
Da Coach said:
lefty, I don't want players who are so meek (we already lack toughness), and I don't want players who back down when other coaches use intimidation tactics. I see nothing wrong with the way AW reacted. It's not like he started the conflict, or escalated it, reacted physically, or is a dirty player. He told the Creighton assistant exactly what he should have done. Maybe his words were a little coarse, but that is about the only thing I could see anyone objecting to.
Click to expand...


I guess we will have to disagree on what toughness is DC. I don't see it as talking to any coach in that manner. A coach said something doesn't mean it's intimidation tactics. Players can be tough without responding to what somebody else says by words. In fact to me that has zero to do with toughness. I doubt Sam M would have responded this way and I think he is a very tough player.
That asst. and AW talked at the end of the game and whatever it was, if anything seemed to be over between the two as they didn't seem to be jawing at each other--maybe they both apologized to each other and moved on...which is the way it should be. I do understand stuff happens in the heat of the battle
 
bustudent said:
You know whatever happened on the court happened, but what warren said in the paper about the coach not getting his lunch or nap, not exactly impressed, that is rubbing insult to injury. a "no comment" would have been much classier, especially after a win.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree bustudent. It seems AW tried to play it off with a joke. I'm not sure most college students with limited interviewing experience would know how to handle such an awkward situation or question, unlike a paid adult college coach. I think many might have read even more into a "no comment".
 
Braves4Life said:
I'm not so sure about that either lefty. I think most people would have responded the way AW did. I know I probably would have done the same thing if someone got in my business.
Click to expand...

was the asst. coach in his business really? What did he say to AW? I didn't think they were face to face much actually...more like the asst. said something while they were there in the scrum(which is wrong) and AW said shut the F up walking away...you are walking away...what's the point? I don't think the asst. should have said anything to JL either kind of bringing him to mid court so JL could hear what he ahd to say...that coach had other problems, like trying to beat a last place team.. I guess I go by the 2 wrongs don't make it right idea....

Like I said they both talked at the end of the game and it seemed to be over between the two...so it's not that big of a deal I guess

It bothers me to see how many players act on the floor at many levels of the game with refs,coaches(their own and opposing),after any kind of play,fans,other players with all the talk,(which seems to be part of the game now)...
 
did you watch any of the games on ESPN last night??
There were numerous "intentional fouls" called again........the refs are going overboard making this call on just about everything aggressive but here's where I think it is going to backfire...

If you are going to get hit with an intentional foul, then you might as well get your money's worth....
this is exactly why all the rules penalizing payback pitches in MLB haven't cut down the number of brushbacks and beanings...
and there was already one failed experiment with this during the Versace era...when NCAA made (1983-84) every single foul in the final two minutes of every game an automatic 2-shot foul even if the team's not in the bonus.....
.....causing the player to just go ahead and hit hard since he had little to lose...
If you recall -- this rule was rescinded even before the season was half over as exactly what guys like Versace predicted would happen with this rule did happen and players were getting injured.
 
the intentional foul call is a judgement call...like all of the calls I guess....if they don't make a play on the ball and coming from behind then I understand why they call it

the intentional/personal foul in football is even harder to judge IMO
 
all these intentional foul calls are silly, though...just make the call and move on...just the way we've always done it....
but for each and every one, the refs stop the game, huddle for several minutes, then walk to the scorers table and watch the replay for several minutes....
then they repeat the whole process a few minutes later when the kid who was clobbered fights back....
Again...I say either call it and move on, or eject the kid, or whatever...
but the 5-10 minute delay on each of these calls is getting a bit silly......
 
IMO they simply need to change the rule to award 2 shots and the ball for a "flagrant foul."

We all know when a foul is "intentional." This would take a lot of pressure off the officials and give them the ability to severely penalize overly aggressive fouls that put the players well being at risk.
 
Double D said:
IMO they simply need to change the rule to award 2 shots and the ball for a "flagrant foul."

We all know when a foul is "intentional." This would take a lot of pressure off the officials and give them the ability to severely penalize overly aggressive fouls that put the players well being at risk.
Click to expand...
DD with a flagrant foul you also have to add the player gets ejected because he does under current rules. With an intentional foul an ejection does not take place.
 
tornado said:
all these intentional foul calls are silly, though...just make the call and move on...just the way we've always done it....
but for each and every one, the refs stop the game, huddle for several minutes, then walk to the scorers table and watch the replay for several minutes....
then they repeat the whole process a few minutes later when the kid who was clobbered fights back....
Again...I say either call it and move on, or eject the kid, or whatever...
but the 5-10 minute delay on each of these calls is getting a bit silly......
Click to expand...


yeah...I agree with all the time it takes.....make the call and go.

I know people want to make sure they get the call right but it's getting a little nuts. The ISU red game was a good example of that
 
wily coyote said:
DD with a flagrant foul you also have to add the player gets ejected because he does under current rules. With an intentional foul an ejection does not take place.
Click to expand...

Then that needs to be eliminated to give the officials the flexability to apply a penalty equal to the level of foul. A player can be too aggressive (undercut, two handed push, etc.) without the need for an ejection.
 
Double D said:
Then that needs to be eliminated to give the officials the flexability to apply a penalty equal to the level of foul. A player can be too aggressive (undercut, two handed push, etc.) without the need for an ejection.
Click to expand...
DD you are right the penalty should fit the crime and thats where some of the problems lie. IT is up to the officials to determine if a foul is intentional,flagrant or just a plain common foul. Each have their own penalities and are very different. The problem comes with what one official may call something an intentional ,whereas another may call the same thing a common foul or a flagrant and that leads to the confusion. The penalities are clear for each type of foul but determining which it is sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top