Well he got hurt because they didnt put a stop to guys not letting him land. In particular Dudley but he wasnt the only guy. I know that stuff happens all the time. No Im not saying the refs “did it”, Im saying they contributed to it or at at the least increased the chances of someone getting hurt, because they were letting dangerous plays happen.
Yes, he did. I know that. I quoted that. I acknowledged that.
Precisely what I thought you were saying, and what I believe MM was referring to.
You're really twisting things. He implied that they facilitated the event even though he said they didnt cause the injury, so that's why MM said "He's saying they caused the injury"...?
I'm twisting things? You're misquoting MM. He didn't say TBF said the refs caused the injury. He said TBF blamed the refs for the injury. Two different things.
I generally give MM the benefit of the doubt where others don't.
Geez, get a room already...
Hey, don't swear.
The voice of experience?
You said the refs were at fault for not calling a foul previously for backing into Nurk. That's how he got hurt. Nurk landed on Dinwiddie.
So if a player behind you jumps, you, tracking a rebound, somehow need to make sure that player can land?
No, I said they were at fault for not setting the tone of the game. Not that they were at fault for Nurk's injury. I said a few times now the injury could have happened in a well-officiated game or may not have happened in a terribly officiated game. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the portion of at fault for not calling a foul previously for backing into nurk? He got hurt landing on a guy's leg, and yes injuries happen its part of the game, but injuries are more likely to happen when dangerous plays are allowed.
Them's the rules.
My wife assumes the worst of me, Bones can too
Shit happens more frequently when refs don't have good control over the game and they certainly did not have good control over this game.
This is true
I've always assumed that was part of a wife's job.
I'm saying that not just with that particular play, but in general when a guy is in the air they're supposed to get space to land yes. It's why if a player has position and a guy jumps at them it's a charge (he choose to jump into you), and why it's supposed to be a foul if you jump under a guy who's already in the air. I don't know if that injury was preventable by anything the refs could've done, but I do know that numerous times in that game they were allowing players to not give guys space to land and that is a dangerous play.
The refs had zero to do with Nurks injury. Nada, zilch, nothing. He went up and landed on a foot, period.
No, it's not the rules
Maybe, we will never know but had they established early in the game that undercutting guys in the air was a foul, it might have prevented players from continuing to do it all game long.
So a completely separate point. Nurks injury sucks, but no one did anything dangerous or malicious on that play.
But we do know
Yep, it is. You gotta give a guy room to land else you're gonna have twisted ankles all over the place. Stepping on another athlete's foot is the most common accident leading to injury in sports. Ask me how I know.
Yeah, it looked like a really unfortunate accident to me. Nurk must have thought "Oh shit, what else".
I haven't watched the injury or the events following, so I really have no idea--did the ref step over Nurk after he went down?
