UCLA gets all the calls

[SilkyJ]

Most of you guys are probably asleep, but I know there are a handful of folks who just watched Stanford get screwed at the end of regulation by the refs.

To those who didn't: Stanford was winning for something like 35 minutes, was up 12 at half, double digits much of the 2nd half, and UCLA comes back and ties it up with 20 seconds left. Stanford gets a bucket with 7 seconds left and Collison comes down and tries a runner from 6-8 ft with a second or two left and gets blocked, but a foul is called. In real time it looked questionable AT BEST. Replay showed no question all ball at the hand level, a bit of body contact, possibly not foul worthy in the middle of the game and at the end I would label it questionable at best, which is all really irrelevant b/c the defender definitely went straight up. AWFUL call. Collison hits both FTs to go to OT and UCLA wins in OT.

[Namtilal]

Agreed, and what makes it even worse was the egregious non-call on the go-ahead shot by Stanford just seconds before. There was an extreme amount of contact -- Love got knocked to the ground by the shooter. It was absolutely either a block or a charge. And they followed it up with the bad call on a phantom foul at the other end???

[SilkyJ]

Agreed, and what makes it even worse was the egregious non-call on the go-ahead shot by Stanford just seconds before. There was an extreme amount of contact -- Love got knocked to the ground by the shooter. It was absolutely either a block or a charge. And they followed it up with the bad call on a phantom foul at the other end???

Looked like Love flopped to me on that play...I didn't see much contact and thought it was a no call...though I didn't watch a replay of it...

[TussAgee11]

So I'm supposed to blame refs when it was Stanford who blew their lead, and then scored 4 points in OT...

Sorry, even if you want to disagree with a quick snap second judgement by an official (which I rarely rarely do), Stanford had more chances at winning that game then the refs had at "blowing it".

Just saying... if I'm a Stanford fan I'm more concerned that my team pretty much crumbled in the 2nd half and OT...

I really think the media plays up this sort of controversy just to build the hype... how many times have we seen ESPN do it with the Duke Bias BS...

[Cameron]

Whether Stanford's loss was unjust or not, this was an absolute demoralizing loss for the Cardinal. With a win in Pauley, Stanford moves to 25-4 overall (I believe) and ushers themselves past UCLA as one of the leading contenders for the top seed in the West. It's a shame they crumbled down the stretch, but I just knew the Bruins would take this game. I watched the game (I thought the block looked pretty clean also) and the tides were starting to shift midway through the second.

I did like Stanford head coach Trent Johnson's post game comments, though: "We made some very good defensive plays down the stretch. We made some very good defensive plays down the stretch." His points of emphasis were very, very clear, but he refrained from the traditional whining route of action that many coaches take instead. I applaud Johnson.

In the end, however, this loss probably won't affect Stanford's team too much. The Cardinal are going to be exposed dearly in the Big Dance by their putrid jump shooting. It is simply bad.

[kydevil]

The call Collison got was pretty terrible, it looked like the ref was determined to call the fould and was most likely going to if he was given an oppourtunity.
After that call I decided to pack it up and hit the sack, those pac-10 games are had to stay up through.

At least Collison admitted it was a poor call (link below)

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/7...e,-little-luck

[Dukerati]

Classy comment by Collison. You know it's a bad call when the player who got fouled says it was a "complete block". I watched the game too (thought I'd stay up and vote for Demarcus a few hundred more times) and even though Stanford blew their lead, they still would have won the game if not for that call. The refs decided the game. If that was Duke in the NCAA tournament, I know I would be inconsolable.

[kydevil]

Agreed, I had a feeling that if the refs had a chance they would give UCLA a good call. However, Stanford took their shot too early, leaving 7.5ish seconds left for UCLA to go down the court and get "fouled."

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I'm less concerned with the call itself (I'd love to hear Feldspar, Playcaller, etc. share their wisdom and experience on if that was/was not a good call) but I'm irked that it got so little attention. If Duke had gotten that call Sportscenter would have done a 5 minute segment, Swofford would have suspended the official, and talk radio would spend the next month on how "Duke gets all the calls." Instead we get one replay and I'd be surprised if it's even mentioned again after a day or so.

I generally think too much emphasis is given to close/bad calls since, as others have noted, Stanford still had a good chance to pull out a win. But if we get creamed for every close call, I think it's hypocritical to not give the same treatment to UCLA, who is more highly-ranked and just as historically prominent.

Grrr, feelin' grumpy on a rainy morning.

[feldspar]

I'm less concerned with the call itself (I'd love to hear Feldspar, Playcaller, etc. share their wisdom and experience on if that was/was not a good call) but I'm irked that it got so little attention. If Duke had gotten that call Sportscenter would have done a 5 minute segment, Swofford would have suspended the official, and talk radio would spend the next month on how "Duke gets all the calls." Instead we get one replay and I'd be surprised if it's even mentioned again after a day or so.

I didn't see it, so I can't comment.

I will, however, comment on the absolute hilarity of kydevil insinuating that the refs were looking for an opportunity to help UCLA win the game. That's just priceless.

[crimsonandblue]

It was a bad call. It was a particularly bad point to make a bad call. But as for, "what if Duke had gotten that call?" well, they showed the replay three or four times in OT and said it was a bad call. I don't know how much else attention the call could have gotten. And the announcers were noticeably restrained in commenting at all on the officiating all game (e.g. the foul on Finger when Westbrook looked to have just fallen chasing a loose ball and/or traveled).

Anyway, it's a tough way to lose, but had the foul not been called, the ball was out to UCLA, I think. They still would have had a couple seconds with the ball on the baseline. I wouldn't bet against Collison throwing some more trash in.

And as for Stanford exiting early, maybe. But they just went into Paulley and should have won. That looks to me to be a pretty solid group.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

But as for, "what if Duke had gotten that call?" well, they showed the replay three or four times in OT and said it was a bad call. I don't know how much else attention the call could have gotten.

I'm not referring to the in-game reaction, but the major media reaction (like the SC roundtable on "Does Duke get All the Calls?" in '06) and the league reaction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/sp...l/07hoops.html

Mostly just bitter from the heat Duke has taken in recent years and the backlash from fans, media, and officials (Duke-FSU Game 2 we shot 17 FT's, they shot 40 with an 30-18 foul difference). Not posting rationally.

[hurleyfor3]

It must have been a makeup call for the "non-foul" committed by the tuba player in '82.

[crimsonandblue]

I'm not referring to the in-game reaction, but the major media reaction (like the SC roundtable on "Does Duke get All the Calls?" in '06) and the league reaction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/sp...l/07hoops.html

Mostly just bitter from the heat Duke has taken in recent years and the backlash from fans, media, and officials (Duke-FSU Game 2 we shot 17 FT's, they shot 40 with an 30-18 foul difference). Not posting rationally.

Well, it doesn't hurt UCLA that it happened at 1 a.m. eastern on a Thursday night on Fox Sports Net.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Well, it doesn't hurt UCLA that it happened at 1 a.m. eastern on a Thursday night on Fox Sports Net.

Definitely true. Maybe it's the upside of East Coast Bias?

[SilkyJ]

I really think the media plays up this sort of controversy just to build the hype... how many times have we seen ESPN do it with the Duke Bias BS...

I don't know or care about the media in this instance. I posted 5 seconds after the game was over and hadn't listened to any talking heads.

I saw it live and watched the replay several times. It was an awful call.

[rsvman]

It's getting quite a bit of media attention. Maybe not as much as had it been the end of the Duke-Carolina game, but still quite a bit.

This morning on Mike and Mike Fran Fraschilla said that he almost "went into the bathroom to throw up" because he felt so bad for the Stanford team after they had the game STOLEN from them by an "incredibly bad call." Furthermore, he went on to opine that the refs in the Pac-10 are the worst in the country in terms of giving the end-game calls to the home team or the "team that's expected to win."

He spoke his mind very frankly. In fact, it was worse than what we usually hear in the 'Duke gets all the calls' discussions.

[johnb]

I was upset by the call because I like the teams ranked ahead of Duke to lose. That was a bad call, as was the intentional foul call against Stanford when its player was clearly--to my eye--trying to commit the foul by slapping at the ball.

I don't understand how Mike and Mike could have watched the game when their radio show starts at about 6 am--guess they have a lot of energy.

The most reassuring bit of news: neither team looked especially good; we can beat either of them.

[Clipsfan]

I watched it live as well and was on the good end of the call (obviously I was rooting for UCLA). However, I've already made comments to several friends that UCLA received a little help from the officials last night. I am not unhappy, as this hopefully cements a one seed in the west (as long as UCLA wins at least 2-3 more games). As Duke fans, we should also be happy because this also makes the chances of Duke playing UCLA in Phoenix significantly smaller.

If I'd been a Stanford fan, I'd have been irate. Especially as I thought that UCLA received the benefit of several other calls throughout the game (I didn't think that it was an overly fair officiating performance).

[rsvman]

I don't understand how Mike and Mike could have watched the game when their radio show starts at about 6 am--guess they have a lot of energy.

It was neither Mike nor Mike that made the comments. It was ex-Division 1 basketball coach Fran Fraschilla.