Jaylen Reynolds

[Backyard Champ]

I will preface this by saying I haven't been on the board as much as I'd like, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed.

Jaylen needs to learn to pass the ball. I think he is a good player, and could be great if he would pass a bit more. I know he can't and wont pass like Stainbrook, but feel like every touch he gets in the post is going up, whether it is a good look or not. He misses a lot of good opportunities to pass to an open gaurd, or turns it over often because he is doubled.

Also, that was an awful technical called on him at the end of the half. Maybe a dumb foul, but no where close to a T.

[smileyy]

If you like Xavier players a lot, you should learn how to spell their names (though I should learn with year of eligibility they're in...so maybe we all have room for improvement).

You can't really learn to do something effectively until you have to do it. Kenny Frease's career development was such that he wasn't a consistent unstoppable offensive threat 1-1 until his senior year. Which meant that he didn't face double-teams and learn how to pass out of double-teams until about halfway through his senior year.

My point being is Jalen having the problem his sophomore year is a good thing. It gives him time to learn.

[LA Muskie]

Welcome back! It has been mentioned (mostly as an aside) in the other thread coincidentally entitled "Jalen Reynolds!" (they added an exclamation point). For what it's worth, I agree with you. Although I wouldn't put it at the top of my concerns about Jalen.

As for the T -- as a dead ball foul I believe it had to be a technical. I do think the refs could (and probably should) have swallowed their whistle. But that's no excuse for Jalen putting himself in that position in the first place.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I would really like someone who knows or who will look it up (not me :)) to tell us if the rules state that that foul had to be a technical because the horn sounded and it was a dead ball. I think that might be the case. I'm not sure it was so much s judgement call as a rule.

[smileyy]

Jalen is the clear front-runner for the unofficial "Zip 'em up" award at the end of the year, given to the Xavier player least likely to take shit and most likely to start shit. Mark Lyons would be proud. Tu would teach him how to do it right.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Didn't see LAs post before I posted. But I think he's right. They could have called nothing but I think since they did it might have had to be a tech.

What happens though if the horn and the foul come right after one another can't it also sometimes be a common foul that isn't counted bc the horn already sounded? What if a similar situation happens at the end of a game instead of half?

[BandAid]

As awful as the foul was, it probably helped to spark the team

[D-West & PO-Z]

Jalen is the clear front-runner for the unofficial "Zip 'em up" award at the end of the year, given to the Xavier player least likely to take shit and most likely to start shit. Mark Lyons would be proud. Tu would teach him how to do it right.

I think JP is pretty close too. Less itimidating tho. He starts a lot of stuff. The double tech was set initiated by him.

[LA Muskie]

You think a T before halftime sparked us in the 2nd half?

[smileyy]

I remember at one point that technical fouls were counted among a player's fouls in terms of fouling out. It looks like that's no longer the case? Or did I read the box score wrong throughout the game?

[BandAid]

You think a T before halftime sparked us in the 2nd half?

I think most everyone was emotional about that call. It certainly woke up the crowd

[D-West & PO-Z]

I remember at one point that technical fouls were counted among a player's fouls in terms of fouling out. It looks like that's no longer the case? Or did I read the box score wrong throughout the game?

It counted. He had 2 and went in with 3.

[LA Muskie]

Didn't see LAs post before I posted. But I think he's right. They could have called nothing but I think since they did it might have had to be a tech.

What happens though if the horn and the foul come right after one another can't it also sometimes be a common foul that isn't counted bc the horn already sounded? What if a similar situation happens at the end of a game instead of half?

I was wrong. A dead ball personal foul should be ignored unless it was flagrant or intentional, in which case it is a technical foul.

Absent something being said on the court that we're not privy to that would have affected that judgment (the ref threw that T very quickly, and I don't necessarily think he was aware time had expired before the contact), I don't see anything in that play indicating intent.

Here are the 2 grounds on which the technical would have had to be based (Section 5, Article 1):

d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner.
e. Flagrantly (severe or extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead.

[LA Muskie]

I think most everyone was emotional about that call. It certainly woke up the crowd

Sure. At the time. But 20 minutes later?

[D-West & PO-Z]

I was wrong. A dead ball personal foul should be ignored unless it was flagrant or intentional, in which case it is a technical foul.

Absent something being said on the court that we're not privy to that would have affected that judgment (the ref threw that T very quickly, and I don't necessarily think he was aware time had expired before the contact), I don't see anything in that play indicating intent.

Here are the 2 grounds on which the technical would have had to be based (Section 5, Article 1):

d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner.

e. Flagrantly (severe or extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead.

The only thing I can think of is that the ref felt like enough time had passed between the horn and jalen making contact that it was d above.

I don't buy that though and thought it was a common foul close to the buzzer and should have been waved off.

[xudash]

I'm past the making of the call.

I'm more focused on wanting Jalen to play INTELLIGENTLY!

[Masterofreality]

The only thing I can think of is that the ref felt like enough time had passed between the horn and jalen making contact that it was d above.

I don't buy that though and thought it was a common foul close to the buzzer and should have been waved off.

Nope. Rule is clear. Stupid play by Jalen and by rule it was a tech because it was after the buzzer which constituted a "dead ball situation". Below is directly from the rule book:

"Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner."

You can argue if the DePaul player flopped, and I certainly think that was a possibility, but if the zebras believed there was contact, the rule applies.

[waggy]

It depends on what the word "and" means.

[LA Muskie]

MOR you're leaving out the qualifying language. To wit, "in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner."

[Masterofreality]

MOR you're leaving out the qualifying language. To wit, "in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner."

What? It's in there. Direct from the rule book in my post quote.

it was unnecessary, unacceptable, and unless the DePaul guy flopped, excessive.

[LA Muskie]

What? It's in there. Direct from the rule book in my post quote.

it was unnecessary, unacceptable, and unless the DePaul guy flopped, excessive.

I saw your quote (I quoted from it). I also posted the rule (complete with quote) above, before you. I know the rule.

My point -- to the extent it was lost in translation -- was that you seemed to be assuming that contact alone required a T. That's not the end of the question. It also has to be unnecessary, unacceptable, AND excessive (conjunctive, not disjunctive).

If your argument is that any deadball contact is, by definition, "unnecessary and unacceptable" I disagree. If that were the case the language would be surplusage. And yes, I do think the kid flopped. Bigtime.

[Masterofreality]

I saw your quote (I quoted from it). I also posted the rule (complete with quote) above, before you. I know the rule.

My point -- to the extent it was lost in translation -- was that you seemed to be assuming that contact alone required a T. That's not the end of the question. It also has to be unnecessary, unacceptable, AND excessive (conjunctive, not disjunctive).

If your argument is that any deadball contact is, by definition, "unnecessary and unacceptable" I disagree. If that were the case the language would be surplusage. And yes, I do think the kid flopped. Bigtime.

Don't assume. Read the whole quote. Stop "lawyering".

[LA Muskie]

Don't assume. Read the whole quote. Stop "lawyering".

I'm not assuming. You said "You can argue if the DePaul player flopped, and I certainly think that was a possibility, but if the zebras believed there was contact, the rule applies."

Mere deadball contact is not enough. It has to be contact that is objectively "unnecessary, unacceptable, and excessive." Perhaps they decided it was all of those. In which case I disagree. But if all deadball contact is, by definition, objectively "unnecessary, unacceptable, and excessive" then the language is unnecessary. The rule would just say "d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead."

[LA Muskie]

PS: MOR, I agree that, regardless, it was a bone-headed play on Jalen's part. And I don't understand why he was on the court at that point in any event (making it a bone-headed decision on Mack's part as well).

[Masterofreality]

I'm not assuming. You said "You can argue if the DePaul player flopped, and I certainly think that was a possibility, but if the zebras believed there was contact, the rule applies."

Mere deadball contact is not enough. It has to be contact that is objectively "unnecessary, unacceptable, and excessive." Perhaps they decided it was all of those. In which case I disagree. But if all deadball contact is, by definition, objectively "unnecessary, unacceptable, and excessive" then the language is unnecessary. The rule would just say "d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead."

Dude, I took the language right from the rule book, unchanged.

A) It was after the buzzer so a dead ball.
B) it was unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive- in the refs opinion, thereby being a technical.

What is the issue? If you are parsing language, parse it with the guy who wrote the rule.

[LA Muskie]

Dude, I took the language right from the rule book, unchanged.

A) It was after the buzzer so a dead ball.
B) it was unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive- in the refs opinion, thereby being a technical.

What is the issue? If you are parsing language, parse it with the guy who wrote the rule.

Dude,

I didn't understand you to be saying "B". (If you said it before, it certainly wasn't as clear as it is now.).

If that's the case I agree with your interpretation. But -- as I said before -- I disagree with the officials' opinion. I don't think anything about that contact was unacceptable or excessive. (Hard to argue "unnecessary".)

[Masterofreality]

Dude,

I didn't understand you to be saying "B". (If you said it before, it certainly wasn't as clear as it is now.).

If that's the case I agree with your interpretation. But -- as I said before -- I disagree with the officials' opinion. I don't think anything about that contact was unacceptable or excessive. (Hard to argue "unnecessary".)

Ok, we have reached common ground. Onward. :smile:

[94GRAD]

I'm past the making of the call.

I'm more focused on wanting Jalen to play INTELLIGENTLY!

I have a feeling that will take a while to happen if ever

[XfansinKy]

Ok, we have reached common ground. Onward. :smile:
You guys stop just when I'm beginning to begin to have a slight idea of what you were getting at when you began to quote the rulebook towards the beginning of this thread . Like I said in another thread, "EKU grad here".