Because it was a reaction thing and not planned. I'm not even sure he was aiming for his nuts because it was behind him and I think he just kicked out trying to push off him to get back up court. I know you were kidding, but hard for me to understand how a Hoosier fan gets so up in arms over something like that. We've seen that Cav harbours some grudges and this feels like that.
Holy Leal
- Thread starter Cavanagh
- Start date
Not sure he even made contact, but Furst sure went all Loyerflop. Furst was objectively the greater villian in that exchange.
Its strange how an IU fan would side with Purdue folks on this one...to me. The entire play was...Furst pulling Leal to the floor, which could have been called a hook and hold Flagrant 1...Furst holding Leal down for a couple seconds (could have been a T or Flagrant 1)...Leal untangling himself and standing up...Furst hooking Leals legs with his right leg (could have been a Flagrant 1)...and then yes, Leal intentionally kicking his leg back to step on, or kick maybe, Furst (could have been Flagrant 1 or 2).
So, to focus on the last kick part, as an IU fan...its interesting to me. I'm glad the officials saw the entire play, and called it accordingly. IU would have likely lost that game without Leal.
Just put Leal in that category with Romeo for guys Cav's going to have a hard on for, as long as he posts here. I don't get it, but that guy will hang onto a grudge. And, he'll defend X and Tamar forever too. I think his X love figures in here because X was ridiculed for a nut punch, but that, to my recollection, was running back up the court, and don't remember if anything precipitated it (it probably did), while Leal's was reactive to trying to get out of a scrum with a guy who just elbowed him in the head and pulled him down. Nothing to see here... unless you're a PU fan.
Yeah...even at that...we all know Cav is far from a PU fan...to not acknowledge the entire play is strange to me, even for him and his obvious Leal bias.
No, I am not saying he's a PU fan. I think he has a tremendous need to feel, and try and prove, he's right.
Lappas had it right, should have been flagrant 1 (Furst), flagrant 2 on Leal. The PROOF is when Leal pointed to heaven when he knew he had done wrong and had gotten away with not getting the F2. Everybody saw the replay and it was pretty clear what happened, Purdue and IU both can try to spin it in their direction. Leal is a hustler that works his fanny off, and its kinda funny that the one player on IU who gives the best effort is collecting the least NIL. Was good to see IU "PRAISE" the chair after the game.
Sure, but to that degree, and to the point that you're trashing a player on the team you support who, with limited athletic talent, has helped the team to several wins we otherwise might not have had? There's a lot wrong with this team, Anthony Leal isn't on the first page of those things. With age, I still want to be right, but I don't have to try and make others think that nearly as much and I also can hear counter arguments a lot better. Cav's still young, imo.
I am open to changing my opinions, but most times I dig in and find more and more validation for said opinions. In this case I don’t think Leal is a good basketball player, don’t think he would start on any good team, and think he relies on dirty tricks to provide value on the court.
I am also positive everyone here would call him Davidson 2.0 for Wisconsin, if he played for them. I don’t magically like that style of play because he has IU on his chest.
Always fair never biased Cavanagh 2028
Changed my mind on JG and lander. I don’t always stick to my original opinion.
I think everyone knows Leal "got away with something"...but there isn't any proof that he intentionally tried to stomp on Furst's balls. It was a rare case where the officials used common sense in a situation where there was no way to know if his intent was Flagrant 2 levels of action. If I were them, I'd have probably called Flagrant 1 on both of them. But calling nothing was a good approach too.
95% of flagrant fouls are not intentional, but if you can not see what Leals intent was, even with slow motion replay, then your not being honest, the protection of the players is paramount I don't care whose teams player it is, Leal was lucky, but the Refs did neither team a service in the no call! Should have been free throws for both teams.
I am sick of the flagrant foul deal. Officials stopping games all the time. Forget flagrant 1 and 2. Guys come down with a rebound and their elbow accidentally hits a guy shouldn’t be a flagrant foul. Swinging your elbows wildly for no reason, fine flagrant foul.
It’s seems to me an overwhelming number of the flagrant 1 and 2s are incidental contact during normal basketball plays.
The "money shot" so to speak is what PU fans will solely focus on for obvious reasons and others who see it casually don't care enough to look at the whole play they just see the highlight.
Furst has underachieved and whines..a lot, but I was surprised to see this from him honestly.
Remember when some fans were pissed that IU didn't land Furst? Dodged a bullet.
Flagrant 1 for both of them then. As I said. Focusing solely on Leal's kick back, is absurd. And its why the refs, I'm sure, ruled how they did.
I'm sure the convo with the refs was similar to this...
"IU kid sure looks like he kicked Purdue kid on purpose."
"Definitely, but is he kicking at a specific area, or just kicking back at him?"
"And then if we call IU kid for flagrant, we have to call Purdue kid for flagrant too, for pulling him down."
"Yep, and then hooking him with his leg. That can be a dangerous play too."
"No way to tell how malicious either of them were. Lets just call nothing and move on."
"Agreed."
Similar threads
