Champagnie's Technical

[Chescat]

Yes, he deserved it, and shouldn't have re acted. The refs reviewed it and
allowed NCST's #4 get away with one. As I saw it he initiated the whole
thing by taunting with the ball. After the whistle, he clearly shoved the ball
on to Champagnie's shoulder, thus illiciting the response (shove).
IMO he should have also been given a T. I see it as offsetting. You
don't hear that term, "offsetting" in basketball like you do in football.
If I were the ref I woulda nailed #4 too. I guess that's why I couldn't ever
be a ref. LOL

 

[33pitt99]

Yes, he deserved it, and shouldn't have re acted. The refs reviewed it and
allowed NCST's #4 get away with one. As I saw it he initiated the whole
thing by taunting with the ball. After the whistle, he clearly shoved the ball
on to Champagnie's shoulder, thus illiciting the response (shove).
IMO he should have also been given a T. I see it as offsetting. You
don't hear that term, "offsetting" in basketball like you do in football.
If I were the ref I woulda nailed #4 too. I guess that's why I couldn't ever
be a ref. LOL

No question it should have been a double technical. Can’t believe they reviewed it and didn’t call the initial taunting since they seem to be focused on taunting this year.

 

[Millerton]

No question it should have been a double technical. Can’t believe they reviewed it and didn’t call the initial taunting since they seem to be focused on taunting this year.

Yel I agree. Horrible non call. How they let their player get away with that is a shame. He deserved to be pushed.

 

[Black Panther]

Yes, he deserved it, and shouldn't have re acted. The refs reviewed it and
allowed NCST's #4 get away with one. As I saw it he initiated the whole
thing by taunting with the ball. After the whistle, he clearly shoved the ball
on to Champagnie's shoulder, thus illiciting the response (shove).
IMO he should have also been given a T. I see it as offsetting. You
don't hear that term, "offsetting" in basketball like you do in football.
If I were the ref I woulda nailed #4 too. I guess that's why I couldn't ever
be a ref. LOL

Could have and should have been a double T.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Could have and should have been a double T.

Double t or rescind the t for Justin

if the refs weren’t in the tank and pot committed

 

[wbrpanther]

No question it should have been a double technical. Can’t believe they reviewed it and didn’t call the initial taunting since they seem to be focused on taunting this year.

This.

 

[DruidTM]

Double t or rescind the t for Justin

if the refs weren’t in the tank and pot committed

Yeah but ... others keep saying the refs are never biased and all that?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Yeah but ... others keep saying the refs are never biased and all that?

Refs aren't biased. Sometimes they are wrong. There is no grand conspiracy to screw Pitt among the refs of the world.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Refs aren't biased. Sometimes they are wrong. There is no grand conspiracy to screw Pitt among the refs of the world.

might want to flip Pitt-WVU, Dec 1, 2007 on the ol' VCR and rethink that statement

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

might want to flip Pitt-WVU, Dec 1, 2007 on the ol' VCR and rethink that statement

Don't confuse incompetence with a conspiracy.

 

[drp1tt]

Yes, he deserved it, and shouldn't have re acted. The refs reviewed it and
allowed NCST's #4 get away with one. As I saw it he initiated the whole
thing by taunting with the ball. After the whistle, he clearly shoved the ball
on to Champagnie's shoulder, thus illiciting the response (shove).
IMO he should have also been given a T. I see it as offsetting. You
don't hear that term, "offsetting" in basketball like you do in football.
If I were the ref I woulda nailed #4 too. I guess that's why I couldn't ever
be a ref. LOL

Afterwards you saw number 4 walking away and down the court with a smug cocky-ass demeanor. In the moment I would have whacked him on the next play letting him take a very hard charge.

 

[Chescat]

Afterwards you saw number 4 walking away and down the court with a smug cocky-ass demeanor. In the moment I would have whacked him on the next play letting him take a very hard charge.

yeah, I saw the same thing. He was playing it up like he got
something over on us. Ref really missed on this one. The review
made it very clear that he was taunting. He struck me as a wise ass punk.

 

[pittzap]

Refs aren't biased. Sometimes they are wrong. There is no grand conspiracy to screw Pitt among the refs of the world.

No, but teams get the benefit of the doubt because they are "better" teams. If there is a close offensive foul while Duke is on defense, there is a better chance it's an offensive foul than if it's Pitt on defense.

 

[Millerton]

yeah, I saw the same thing. He was playing it up like he got
something over on us. Ref really missed on this one. The review
made it very clear that he was taunting. He struck me as a wise ass punk.

Yep that was a punk move trying to bully lowly pitt, champegne didn't play the role. Go pitt