Why no review on Parker elbow?

[IMissRandolph]

Don't know if it was or wasn't flagrant, but doesn't that type of thing have to be reviewed?

 

[tbpnwe]

I think it was incidental and I thank Cav sold it a little.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I think it was incidental and I thank Cav sold it a little.

Not sure it was incidental. The latter could be true. It still gets reviewed more often than not.

 

[VaDeac]

He sold it a lot. He channeled his inner Ryan Kelly.

 

[IMissRandolph]

"see jersey color" - classic

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Because it's Duke.

 

[WFU1977]

Cav's supposed foul on the 3 point shot was more egregious. The guy deliberately stuck his leg out. What a dick move by a Dookie

 

[IMissRandolph]

yeah, that was incredibly bad. Luckily the game was pretty much out of reach

 

[dot com]

We've been called for less intentional flagrants.

 

[WinkinDeac]

Cav's supposed foul on the 3 point shot was more egregious. The guy deliberately stuck his leg out. What a dick move by a Dookie

yeah, was glad they didn't get the call when they tried to pull it a second time.

 

[Baconwfu]

In the spirit of the game, no way Parker's foul (or any incidental forearm/elbow brushing near the face) was a flagrant foul, but the way the rule is supposedly written, the "focus" on those types of plays and our history with getting the bad end of those situations I think it should've been called.
Purely incidental and Cav definitely sold it, but if the roles were reversed I'd bet 2:1 that we get T'ed up.

 

[ChrisL68]

If the situation was reversed, Coach K would have freaked out, they would have gone to the tape to appease him and probably called a flagrant on the WFU player.

Bzzz probably idly clapped.

 

[mattwfu99]

Because it was Parker who threw it, and not Devin Thomas.

I didn't think it was totally egregious, but Parker's reaction (he immediately pulled it back and had this "oh shit, I didn't do it" look on his face) made me wonder. But I had no doubt that they wouldn't bother to take a look.