January 2, 2013
2013 Tiger Mailbag: First Edition
Each Wednesday, PowerMizzou.com publisher Gabe DeArmond will answer questions from subscribers in our Tiger Mailbag. This feature will allow for longer, more in-depth answers than you may get on the message board on a daily basis. To have your question in next week's mailbag, send an email to Gabe at email@example.com. On to this week's inquiries:
knohack asks: Please explain the difference between an intentional foul and a flagrant foul and which one should have been called Friday night.
GD: As of May 2011, there is no such thing as an intentional foul. This is straight from the NCAA website:
In other action, the committee changed the nomenclature on fouls that are deemed more severe than a "common" foul.
The terms "Flagrant 1" and "Flagrant 2" will now be used in these situations. A Flagrant 1 foul takes the place of an intentional foul and the Flagrant 2 foul replaces the previous flagrant foul.
An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be a player who swings an elbow and makes non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball.
Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word "intentional," because a player's intent was never the point to the rule.
An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be a player who swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.
The rulebook states that a flagrant foul "shall be a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but not based solely on the severity of the act."
I thought the foul on Pressey should have been a flagrant foul. Yes, we all know UCLA is trying to foul there. But to fail to get anywhere near the ball and knock Pressey down, I thought was excessive. Now, I can understand the opposing viewpoint. Phil probably sold it a bit and the UCLA player was, at least somewhat, trying to reach for the ball. But I thought it should have been called and Missouri should have had free throws and the ball, which would likely have won the game.
ZouFan27 asks: Did Missouri drop the ball in securing a backup point guard to fill in for PP? Seems a bit short sighted that Phil is the only true ball handler on the floor for MU.
GD: Emphatically no. Missouri HAD a backup point guard. His name was Mike Dixon. Haith could not possibly have foreseen what went down with Dixon before last April, which is when he'd have had to sign another point guard. You can make the argument that they have Dominique Bull, who is apparently not ready to play, but there was no reason to think he'd have to be until about a month ago.
murphfan03 asks: This past year in football.....what percentage of the blame do you give to coaching, what percentage to injuries and what percentage to we just don't have the same caliber of players as the rest of the SEC, in our losing record?
GD: They all clearly deserve some blame. I don't want to assign percentages because I don't have enough information to tell you which is more to blame than others. On injuries, I think the offensive line injuries were a major factor that were, to some extent, beyond the staff's control. I mean, you can account for a couple injuries, but not the amount that Missouri had, which resulted in the line looking NOTHING like it was supposed to. But at quarterback, that's the coaching staff's fault (and recruiting). You HAVE to be prepared for your quarterback to be injured. Have to. Missouri wasn't. So, yeah, maybe Missouri beats Vanderbilt if Franklin is healthy. But the fact that they couldn't find a way to do it after he was hurt, that's a failure in recruiting and/or preparation by the staff. And that's really the only game they lost that I think you can argue a healthy quarterback makes the difference. Against Florida, Missouri played its starting quarterback and got beat. Against Syracuse, Missouri played its starting quarterback most of the game and got beat (and the blame for that one goes far more on defense than offense anyway).
I have said for months, where Missouri has to improve to be an upper half of the SEC team is in recruiting. People scoff at recruiting rankings and discount them. And they're far from perfect. But I just don't see how Missouri can beat teams like Georgia, South Carolina or Florida (who they'll play every year) with rosters made up mostly of kids those schools didn't offer. You're going to have to get some blue-chip kids. Evan Boehm can't be the exception. You need an Evan Boehm every year. Is that realistic? I don't know...but I know that if it isn't, Missouri's chances of ever really being a player in the SEC aren't very good.
...More... To continue reading this article you must be a member. Sign Up Now for a FREE Trial