I still don't get it

[Classof06]

I agree with much of what has been said so far. This UNC team has shown at various times throughout the year that they are vulnerable to mental breakdowns (loss at Maryland, getting swept by V Tech, etc). Quite simply, the mentally tougher team beat the more talented one. I also agree with virgnian that had UNC gone to "stall ball", they probably would have never lost that lead. Even if they didn't go stall ball, they stopped attacking the basket and settled for jumpshots. But you know what they say, it's hard to make shots when you have both of your hands wrapped around you neck, haha.

On another point, I partially disagree with what was said on the DBR front page. It said that UNC beat themselves and implied that Georgetown wasn't good enough to give UNC those kinds of problems. I agree that Georgetown got back into the game and sent it to OT because of UNC's miscues; you can't argue UNC's self-inflicted wounds in regulation. But regardless of bad shots, momentum, etc., when OT started, that game was there for the taking and Georgetown took it. UNC didn't give the game away by being outscored 15-3 in OT; Georgetown had a lot to almost everything to do with that and should be given the appropriate credit. Lastly, I would like to thank that good people at Georgetown for making my Sunday bearable. I couldn't imagine having to watch Ol' Roy and "Psycho T" cut down those nets...

[KandG]

I was shocked and overjoyed by the outcome, but the collapse was striking mainly for its timing in such a big game. Remember, this is the same Tar Heel team that gave up a 32-9 run to *Eastern Kentucky* in the first round -- nearly blowing all of a 27 point lead over a vastly inferior team.

In retrospect, that 18-0 run by the Heels to overcome USC was the best thing that could have happened from a Georgetown point of view -- it made the Heels think they were invincible, and could just turn it on no matter what the circumstance. When things started getting tough against the Hoyas, though, suddenly, the switch just flipped off.

[feldspar]

I wasn't surprised that GTown came back and tied it. They've had a propensity for doing that in this tournament, and UNC has done a great job in falling asleep at the wheel in this tournament.

I was shocked, however at the inability of UNC to put the ball in the basket AT ALL until 7.5 seconds were left in overtime. That's just...that's...well, that's just sad. In a good way.

[Richard Berg]

Anyone else annoyed that UNC was still fouling with 5 seconds left in overtime? Maybe Coach K had a point after all.

[Indoor66]

Yes, I thought it carried the "learning process" to the extreme.

[dukeENG2003]

Oh, and did you catch the absolutely stupid replay and remarks by Billy Packer on the "travel" dispute? He aired the replay that definitely showed the pivot (right) foot being moved and reset even before the move to the basket that should have been labelled as the original violation. Then he ignores it and says that the replay is not a travel because of stuff after that not even pertains to that initial movement. Then he refers back to it and claims that the refs can't see everything that happens so fast during a game, and that things don't get called because of that and that's the reason it was a fair call. What a bunch of garbage. He does that all the time. Check it out, Feldspar.
ricks

Another great Billy Packerism, was his claim that you can block a shot off the backboard as long as it is still going up (this was on a UNC shot where there was a foul called and Hibert swatted it away off the glass after the whistle). I'm not sure whether he is technically correct or not on that (anybody ever heard of this, cuz I always thought as soon as it hits the glass, its a goal tend), but unless a ball is shot with TOPspin, it will NEVER go up after it hits the glass, it will ALWAYS go down unless it has a truly odd trajectory. . .

[cato]

Another great Billy Packerism, was his claim that you can block a shot off the backboard as long as it is still going up (this was on a UNC shot where there was a foul called and Hibert swatted it away off the glass after the whistle). I'm not sure whether he is technically correct or not on that (anybody ever heard of this, cuz I always thought as soon as it hits the glass, its a goal tend), but unless a ball is shot with TOPspin, it will NEVER go up after it hits the glass, it will ALWAYS go down unless it has a truly odd trajectory. . .

AFAIK, that is correct in college ball. I believe it is in the pros that the rule is simply whether it has touched the glass.

Also, a lay-up could very well continue to go up after hitting the glass.

[ACCBBallFan]

I too felt the game reminded me of many Duke games this year, blow a big lead and lose at the end.

Besides the no go to guy, I think depth hurt in another way. The best UNC players are not used to playing so many minutes or under so much pressure. They ran out of gas, got winded at the end of second half and in OT, legs went and jumpers did not go in, missed FTs, shots get blocked, etc.

As much as I hate to agree with Packer, Georgetown did look like the more confident team and refs do make calls in favor of team playing confidently and aggressively, human nature, just as they did in UNC's favor in first 30 minutes.

[feldspar]

Oh, and did you catch the absolutely stupid replay and remarks by Billy Packer on the "travel" dispute? He aired the replay that definitely showed the pivot (right) foot being moved and reset even before the move to the basket that should have been labelled as the original violation. Then he ignores it and says that the replay is not a travel because of stuff after that not even pertains to that initial movement. Then he refers back to it and claims that the refs can't see everything that happens so fast during a game, and that things don't get called because of that and that's the reason it was a fair call. What a bunch of garbage. He does that all the time. Check it out, Feldspar.

You misunderstood Packer. What he was saying, in essence, is that it was not the type of travel that Gumble/Kellogg/Davis were originally purporting it to be. It was a travel since his pivot foot left the ground for a split second without the ref seeing it.

As calltheobvious has pointed out, that's an incredibly hard travel for a ref to see. We can only see it definitively with the aid of slow-mo replay and a zoom in. And, again as cto says, you better be 10000% sure it's a travel if you're going to call it in the final seconds of that close of a game.

That was Packer's point. That the original explanation of the travel by Gumbel, et al, was bogus, but that they got bailed out by the slow-mo replay.

[phaedrus]

Another great Billy Packerism, was his claim that you can block a shot off the backboard as long as it is still going up (this was on a UNC shot where there was a foul called and Hibert swatted it away off the glass after the whistle). I'm not sure whether he is technically correct or not on that (anybody ever heard of this, cuz I always thought as soon as it hits the glass, its a goal tend), but unless a ball is shot with TOPspin, it will NEVER go up after it hits the glass, it will ALWAYS go down unless it has a truly odd trajectory. . .

there's no reason a ball, if shot from below the backboard, won't continue to go up after hitting the backboard. it would only need topspin if it was shot at the level of the backboard or above - which doesn't happen very often, unless you're dwight howard.

[feldspar]

Goaltending has nothing to do with the backboard. It's all about the upward/downward flight of the ball.

Once again, Billy Packer was correct.

If he keeps this up, I might actually have to consider resepecting him as an analyst.

Nah...

[greybeard]

Hibbert is among the most articulate and smartest players in the game. He is incredibly well coordinated, has great feet, and his body is hardening and filling out week by week. By far, the best offensive center in the game. The play of the game in my opinion came in the first half. He took Hansborough off the dribble from the top of the key, two dribbles down the right side of the lane, spins and lays it up lefty. He took Hansborough's inside's out with that play. Hansborough was desparately trying to establish a little jump shot after that, so he could draw Hibbert and then beat him off the dribble, to you know, establish his dominance as the inside player with the moves, and that killed Carolina. Who was going to throw it inside with Hansborough having been taken completely out of his game? That's why they didn't go inside. Hansborough was cooked.

Green, I've been telling you guys since before the game in Cameron, is the real, real deal. He has a tremendous lower body, very, very dense but runs like a greyhound. You just do not beat him down the court. And, you don't move him out, and, when he gets his hands on the ball, the discussion is over. He is also, according to JTIII, the smartest ball player he ever coached who makes decisions. There are no errors of hesitation in most of Green's game; he sees it, computes it, does it, in a way that is startling. With the tutalege of JTIII, he plays with an intelligence about the game that just makes players better, which is rare coming from a forward, very, very rare. Hibbert does the same, btw, only somewhat less effectively, but only for now.

The freshman forward was the freshman of the year in the big east, and knows no fear. He will do what needs to be done when it counts, shoot the three, drive the basket, get the ball. And, he did all that in that game, especially in the second half.

Now, and you guys ain't gonna like this, Ewing has been spectacular off the bench in the second half of the season, better than anyone UNC had coming in. Very smart and very, very quick and athletic. Sometimes goes a little too fast for himself, but he is a stone competitor who has been making plays down the stretch too.

The starting guards you know about, and Lawson was kept in check. The guy that has gotten better and better and few people talk about, but who will shut you down, is what's his names son, you know, the Celtic's coaches kid. He is about as good an on-ball defender against points as you will find.

And, that big kid who came in for Hibbert, the freshman, no. 1 I think, he is a big time player, who has been shy about his game. But, I'm sure Wright knows who he is, and he did more than well.

Crawford, who got sick and did not play much this year, came in and did what he does. Stuck a needed three before the half.

Bottom line, the better team won; a more veteran team, with an approach on the offensive side of the ball that defeats and breaks teams down. They get what is easy, what is in rhythm, what is magical (back door cuts run with two guys, the first drawing the defender the second catching a laying it in) than leave you to get what is troubling, what is just a tad out of your rhythm, or at a time and from a spot that you were not expecting, with the ever present thought that you should be doing something else or someone like Ewing, or Green will be flying at you.

No way UNC was 10 points better than Georgetown that first half and Georgetown has made dinner out of second half domination for quite some time.

BTW, did anybody notice how all the talking heads were saying that Georgetown needed to slow Carolina down, keep the score low, to have a chance. Whenever anybody said that to GTIII, he chuckled and said, that no one had done that to UNC yet and that he didn't think that it was possible. The guy can coach em up, as the old ball coach would say.

So, the better team won, imo, UNC's incredible start notwithstanding. And, Rick, your implication that the ref's influenced the outcome is an unexceptional point. As long as they do not call the game according to the rules, and they do not do that, then it will always be the case that how they chose to call the game will often be outcome determinative. Georgetown is a completely finese team. If they called the game the way it should be inside the paint, Hibbert would have had 30, if not against UNC, then certainly against Vandy.

But, calling it straight up, the way they did back in the day, very few teams could compete with Georgetown the way it is playing. What's really interesting is that Ohio State is definitely one of them.

[feldspar]

As long as they do not call the game according to the rules, and they do not do that, then it will always be the case that how they chose to call the game will often be outcome determinative.

I would just love to hear your rationalization for this statement.

[dukeENG2003]

AFAIK, that is correct in college ball. I believe it is in the pros that the rule is simply whether it has touched the glass.

Also, a lay-up could very well continue to go up after hitting the glass.

I guess I stand corrected about the rule, Billy Packer was right about the rule, but watch the replay of that play, and this was NOT one of those funky shots (the shot was from about 8 feet away, even a granny shot from right at your feet from that distance can't continue to travel upwards after hitting the glass, again, if you don't believe me, try it). I'm grappling in my head with how such a shot could be created, and I just can't see it.

try this sometime, and see what kind of crazy shots you have to come up with to make that happen. I guess it IS pros only where the rule is more clearly defined, but I think for good reason.

While I'm getting corrected, I've heard announcers several times say that .3 seconds is not enough time to catch and shoot, is this yet another rules difference between college and the pros, b/c in the NBA, .3 seconds IS long enough (anything less isn't), at least I thought so. Correct away. . .

[feldspar]

While I'm getting corrected, I've heard announcers several times say that .3 seconds is not enough time to catch and shoot, is this yet another rules difference between college and the pros, b/c in the NBA, .3 seconds IS long enough (anything less isn't), at least I thought so. Correct away. . .

Rule 4-67-5.

If there is .3 seconds or less left on the clock upon resumption of play, it can only be a tap, not a catch and shoot.

[greybeard]

I would just love to hear your rationalization for this statement.

The rules of the game are that you may not carry the ball. But, J Will carried it all the time, on that hesitation pull up from three, when the guy would shift his weight forward on his toes to prepare for at least putting his hand up if Jay shot it, Jay would be holding the ball with his hand on the side and then kill the guy with a crossover. Against the rules, but almost never called. You call that all the time, J Will is still hands down a great ballplayer, the best, but not unguardable. You let him do that carry thing, and nobody can guard him. If Duke blows people out, letting JWill do that ain't outcome determinative. In several of the Maryland games, sorry about that Fman, Duke loses.

The rules basically say that if there is serious contact, then somebody fouled somebody, except on blockouts. Now, people body up on post players like the start of a scrum in that other football game. That is a foul. You call it, then nobody guards Hibbert. Nobody. Period. The way Vandy and the team before them guarded Hibbert was that guys would position themselves with their bodies on him that would make it virtually impossible for him to move without pushing an arm or something of theirs out of the way. You call that an offensive foul and you change the game. You call them for fouling him, which imo you have to because that is my understanding of what the game requires, the games are not close.

As it is, we are quibbling about one call, is it a walk or not. How the hell did Vandy shut Hibbert down? It's a trick question. They didn't, the refs did. How, by not calling the game according to the rules. Was it outcome determinative. Only if you are among those who insist that it was some kind of grave injustice that the walk, was a walk, and that it wasn't called and Vandy was robbed. The refs put Vandy in the game. Period. And, what were those ridiculous ticky tacky fouls they were calling on Green, who was only doing to Vandy what Vandy and everyone else has been doing to Hibbert and him all tournament. Only, Green was guarding a guy 22 feet from the basket; he and Hibbert were getting "guarded" seven feet from the hoop, often with the ball in their hands, and were getting fouled in precisely the same fashion.

I find it incredibly difficult to watch big-time college basketball and the pros for precisely the reasons that I am putting forth. I think that once the refs compromise the rules, as they do all the time in the name of entertainment, that it becomes a crapshoot, and they have the dice. That is not what interests me about the sport.

I watch some very high end basketball and do not find the same tolerance for rule's violations that I see in big time college ball.

BTW, I think that this is another reason why the US cannot compete on the International scene. In addition to the different international rules and court geometry, US players are just used to not following the rules. It hurts. So does not playing soccer, but that is where I started.

Incidently, Hojo can coach big men great, but JTIII is the master. Better than LB!

I like the name greybeard better. Don't you?

[feldspar]

The rules basically say that if there is serious contact, then somebody fouled somebody, except on blockouts.

No, no they don't. In fact, in several points in the rule book, the committee is quick to point out that even though certain contact may be severe, it is not neccessarily a foul.

Fouls are more about advantage/disadvantage, and the proper application of this philosophy, than about contact.

I find it incredibly difficult to watch big-time college basketball and the pros for precisely the reasons that I am putting forth. I think that once the refs compromise the rules, as they do all the time in the name of entertainment, that it becomes a crapshoot, and they have the dice. That is not what interests me about the sport.

You've given one semi-concrete reason, and that is Jason Williams, who played 5 years ago, and FWIW, I saw the "palming" call called a lot this year.

You've given no completely concrete reasons, only the same type of rationalization that is used when our detractors say that "Duke gets all the calls."

How the hell did Vandy shut Hibbert down? It's a trick question. They didn't, the refs did.

Pffft. Now you're just being silly. Hibbert made stupid, stupid fouls down the stretch of the Vandy game, including fouling a 3-point shooter to pick up his fifth.

You tell me, why is a team's 7-2 center out on the 3-point line defending a 3-point shot that aggressively with 4 fouls? Because the refs made him do it?

[throatybeard]

Incidently, Hojo can coach big men great

He played a mean third base back in the 1980s, too.

[Kfanarmy]

I think there is room to criticize the officials for calls and no calls. When everyone in the stadium, the announcers, and me sitting at home can tell by Hibbert's motion that he traveled and replay confirms it, something is wrong with Georgetown winning the game on that shot. When Xavier and UT have leads on OSU melted minute by minute with fouls called on every defensive stand and seemingly the same infractions not called on the other end of the court, it is good to question officials competence, execution and/or integrity. Simply equating everything to people saying "Duke gets all the calls." doesn't negate an argument on a specific game or specific call. Officials aren't perfect, and I would submit, some few are purposely not perfect. There will continue to be a lot of unjustified rantings about officials, there will also continue to be a few justified rantings. A more or less equally played game decided in the last minute by "swallowing the whisle" while Making ___ sure the call is right or by making a bad call can, and does, decide the final score in some contests.

I recommend adding one official to the sidelines with a TV monitor who can immediately overturn or make a call...not necessarily replay, but using what he and the cameras see to help refs who by fortune or plan get it wrong.

B

[greybeard]

No, no they don't. In fact, in several points in the rule book, the committee is quick to point out that even though certain contact may be severe, it is not neccessarily a foul.

Fouls are more about advantage/disadvantage, and the proper application of this philosophy, than about contact.



You've given one semi-concrete reason, and that is Jason Williams, who played 5 years ago, and FWIW, I saw the "palming" call called a lot this year.

You've given no completely concrete reasons, only the same type of rationalization that is used when our detractors say that "Duke gets all the calls."




Pffft. Now you're just being silly. Hibbert made stupid, stupid fouls down the stretch of the Vandy game, including fouling a 3-point shooter to pick up his fifth.

You tell me, why is a team's 7-2 center out on the 3-point line defending a 3-point shot that aggressively with 4 fouls? Because the refs made him do it?

During the year Jackson was out of coaching, his assistant, the guy behind the triangle, was asked, "what rule changes would you like to see to open up the game." His response, "none, all they have to do is to call the ones on the book, all the time." He went on to say something pretty darn close to what I said about contact. If you think that the contact you see most of the time in the post that does not get called most of the time is not a foul almost all the time, I have to disagree. I take your advantage rule and is directly inapplicable. If you push and shove Hibbert, or divert him away from a catch within the paint, you have saved yourself two points, unless you are Oden, maybe. He will score the ball if he catches it, and he will catch it if you don't push him. Please. This is silly.

Shaq in his prime used to play with finese for three quarters, making most all the little finesey type flip shots or banks he got off, but not all of them. In the last quarters of close games, he would put down his shoulder and barrel over people. The few times the refs called it, LA lost and Phil screamed conspiracy. It was a fould all the time.

You would not have to push and shove so much in the post if they enforced the rules when it comes to the worst play in all of sports, the dunk. First, hanging on the rim, when you put yourself in danger, not because there are people under you, but because you are wildly off balance and fear breaking your neck, is a technical foul. It almost never is called. Most big men shuffle to gather and dunk, and many, many, pull down the rim so they can get the ball "stuffed" into it. Call the shuffles, make the rims stiff like they were created to be, and make touching the rim other than with a passing light high five type move, offensive goal tending. Then call the pushing and shoving and we will see some real pivot play, which by the way you have always seen in the Princeton, which is just one of the reasons I think that Carrill is the best of the best.

Georgetown has switched on all picks, just as Duke has since the beginning of the season. You don't switch, and guys like Law and Lawson, and the many terrific guards in the Big East, and the guards of Va and VT will eat you up. Hibbert was extremely awkward on the switches at the beginning of the year, but no more. Georgetown's defense is terrific and Hibbert did not foul out because of the two plays that you mentioned. Had the refs called the game, he'd have been making like Red, by that point, whether he had a cigar or not.

Fman, you just like to argue too much. You have too strong a sense of the game to be a fan of the status quo. In the current situation, the best that anyone can hope for is that they "call it consistently." Then, coaches and players adjust their decision making based upon how the game is being called. To me, that makes referees' choices way, way too important. Why not call it straight up? The other way, a team that has no business being on the court with another can be. It's a lousy system designed to create photo ops for ESPN et al, who after all pay the freight, and create a circus that even non fans can understand (because there is nothing to understand).

And, then, when the ref makesl some truly ridiculous call that is out of step with everything else that has been going on because something was out in the open on the exterior, I literally change the channel. I can't watch.

I certainly am not going to cry about how the refs called the game based on an isolated play. At least not when my guys win, I'm not. That is within the current rules, right, Fman? Smile, it's all fun, including your ridiculous attempt to convert Green's obvious walk into a righteous play. Later.