Coach K on Feinstein's show today . . . anybody else a little uncomfortable?

[TheManUpstairs]

I kind of wish he'd wait until things calmed down before making these comments.

http://feinstein.radio.cbssports.com/2014/03/17/mike-krzyzewski-announcers-talk-show-hosts-wont-say-anything-about-calls-for-virginia-in-acc-championship-game/

[SoCalDukeFan]

He is human and he is pissed.

Parker got regularly hammered and rarely was a foul called. UVa got lots ticky tack calls in their favor.
Took Duke completely out of their game at the end.

UVa played better and deserved to win, he said that.

He thinks the T was a bush call.

SoCal

[howardlander]

He is human and he is pissed.

Parker got regularly hammered and rarely was a foul called. UVa got lots ticky tack calls in their favor.
Took Duke completely out of their game at the end.

UVa played better and deserved to win, he said that.

He thinks the T was a bush call.

SoCal

Yeah, it all sounded pretty reasonable to me. If he's not going to stick up for Duke Basketball, who is?

Howard

[sagegrouse]

I am fine with K's comments. Here are the money quotes fromt he interview:


Krzyzewski also discussed the technical foul he received against Virginia on Sunday. Duke is often said to “get all the calls,” but that was a pretty questionable call on Krzyzewski, who had his back to the official when the technical was given.

“It’s like old stuff,” Krzyzewski said. “I think when you win a long time – and we’re not a state school, so you don’t have a press corps protecting you a little bit – you’re out there. That goes with the territory. And not only that, but announcers and talk show hosts and whatever – they will not say anything about yesterday’s game.

“And again, Virginia played better than we did. But obviously there were 38 free throws to 11. There were things that if you’re trying to homer for somebody, you could homer. And we don’t get that at all. Ever.

“So that does get old. But you know what? I’m not going to start losing – or try to start losing – to get away from that.”

I love this one best: "... and we're not a state school, so you don't have a press corps protecting you...."

Really rich!

[Karl Beem]

I kind of wish he'd wait until things calmed down before making these comments.

http://feinstein.radio.cbssports.com/2014/03/17/mike-krzyzewski-announcers-talk-show-hosts-wont-say-anything-about-calls-for-virginia-in-acc-championship-game/

Sure, I think he should have waited until 20 years after retirement.:rolleyes:

[FerryFor50]

I kind of wish he'd wait until things calmed down before making these comments.

http://feinstein.radio.cbssports.com/2014/03/17/mike-krzyzewski-announcers-talk-show-hosts-wont-say-anything-about-calls-for-virginia-in-acc-championship-game/

He's just saying what the rest of the Duke basketball fan contingent has been saying for a while now.

Duke *used* to get a fair share of the calls. Now, not so much. But the perception is still "Duke gets all the calls." The media won.

[Durham Blue Devil]

I have zero issue with what he said. I was at the game yesterday, 4th row, bench side, center court. Parker was fouled and often times hammered throughout the game when he went inside. Often times they were body fouls. Virginia plays very physical defense and the foul disparity that large makes it very hard to compete. The phantom technical was icing on the cake. Throughout the season, it seems to be a common theme that because Parker is so gifted athletically and such a big body, teams are extremely physical with him underneath, and it is very rarely called a foul.

Again, I have zero issue with what he said - great interview by Coach K.

[CDu]

I don't think that we generally get hosed with officiating. And I don't think the issue was quite as bad Sunday as many have made it out to be. I definitely do think we got the raw end of the officiating in that game, though. Most notably Parker (on offense) and Jefferson (on defense).

But regardless of what happened yesterday, I am totally okay with Coach K making comments to the media. For so long people have been allowed to say whatever they want. But Coach K has been long silent on officiating (in large part because we tended to get our fair share of bad calls in our favor). But his job as a coach is to do whatever he can to help his team win. And if he feels that speaking out against officiating will help this team in the tournament, that's just fine.

I think a big part of the issue is that we've adjusted to be a more aggressive team going to the basket. Sulaimon, Hood, and Parker have all started making concerted efforts to go strong to the basket. Yet in spite of that, we're still not getting a lot of calls going to the hoop. So I think that some of his complaints are to reassure his guys that they're doing what needs to be done and in hopes that the officials will start rewarding our guys for continuing to go to the rim.

It certainly isn't going to change the national perception that we get all the calls. But who cares? If it helps even a little bit over the next few weeks, that's all that matters.

[Newton_14]

I have zero issue with what he said. I was at the game yesterday, 4th row, bench side, center court. Parker was fouled and often times hammered throughout the game when he went inside. Often times they were body fouls. Virginia plays very physical defense and the foul disparity that large makes it very hard to compete. The phantom technical was icing on the cake. Throughout the season, it seems to be a common theme that because Parker is so gifted athletically and such a big body, teams are extremely physical with him underneath, and it is very rarely called a foul.

Again, I have zero issue with what he said - great interview by Coach K.
Nor do I. In addition to the no calls in the paint, Jabari got hit on practically everyone of his jumpshot attempts, Andre got fouled on the steal that led to the ensuing Technical, and Andre got fouled by Harris on the drive attempt late in the game. That same type contact was called all day on one end, but rarely called on the opposite end. Maybe UVA wins anyway, who knows. They are a great team. It would have just been nice to see what would have happened if the game was called pretty evenly. For K to be discussing it in the post-game presser and again today is pretty damning. He is in unchartered territory. I dont recall many times K touched this subject since the famous 'double standard' presser back in the early-mid 80's with the Dean thing. Like I said last night I would have much preffered having Karl Hess over Jamie Luckie.

[FerryFor50]

I don't think that we generally get hosed with officiating. And I don't think the issue was quite as bad Sunday as many have made it out to be. I definitely do think we got the raw end of the officiating in that game, though. Most notably Parker (on offense) and Jefferson (on defense).

But regardless of what happened yesterday, I am totally okay with Coach K making comments to the media. For so long people have been allowed to say whatever they want. But Coach K has been long silent on officiating (in large part because we tended to get our fair share of bad calls in our favor). But his job as a coach is to do whatever he can to help his team win. And if he feels that speaking out against officiating will help this team in the tournament, that's just fine.

I think a big part of the issue is that we've adjusted to be a more aggressive team going to the basket. Sulaimon, Hood, and Parker have all started making concerted efforts to go strong to the basket. Yet in spite of that, we're still not getting a lot of calls going to the hoop. So I think that some of his complaints are to reassure his guys that they're doing what needs to be done and in hopes that the officials will start rewarding our guys for continuing to go to the rim.

It certainly isn't going to change the national perception that we get all the calls. But who cares? If it helps even a little bit over the next few weeks, that's all that matters.

I was doing some research for my bracket picks and I noticed this striking statistic.

Villanova took 801 three point attempts this season. They took 993 2 point attempts. That means 44.6% of their shot attempts are from three.

In contrast, Duke took 764 threes this season. They took 1194 twos. So 39% of Duke's shots are from three.

Yet Villanova attempted 801 free throws. Duke attempted 770. Dumbfounding. I always hear about how teams that jack up threes are supposed to never get to the FT line...

[CDu]

I was doing some research for my bracket picks and I noticed this striking statistic.

Villanova took 801 three point attempts this season. They took 993 2 point attempts. That means 44.6% of their shot attempts are from three.

In contrast, Duke took 764 threes this season. They took 1194 twos. So 39% of Duke's shots are from three.

Yet Villanova attempted 801 free throws. Duke attempted 770. Dumbfounding.

Well, I think a decent chunk of that is quality of competition. Duke played a tougher schedule, and as a result lost a few more games than Villanova.

When you're leading late, you're going to shoot more free throws. And Villanova was leading late a bit more often than Duke.

Also, that doesn't take into account true "and-1s" vs shooting fouls that result in a missed FG. If you get fouled on a shot and don't make it, that will not count in your FGA and will add an extra FTA. If you get fouled but make the shot, that is an extra FGA AND you get one less FT.

So between the quality of competition, the slight reduction in number of games in which the team in question was leading late, and the uncertainty about "and 1s", I don't find any of these numbers all that unreasonable.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well, I think a decent chunk of that is quality of competition. Duke played a tougher schedule, and as a result lost a few more games than Villanova.

When you're leading late, you're going to shoot more free throws. And Villanova was leading late a bit more often than Duke.

Also, that doesn't take into account true "and-1s" vs shooting fouls that result in a missed FG. If you get fouled on a shot and don't make it, that will not count in your FGA and will add an extra FTA. If you get fouled but make the shot, that is an extra FGA AND you get one less FT.

So between the quality of competition, the slight reduction in number of games in which the team in question was leading late, and the uncertainty about "and 1s", I don't find any of these numbers all that unreasonable.

It would be really interesting to develop a tight analysis of a simple thing like "free throws attempted." I mean, looking at where you are shooting from, if you are ahead or behind and by what amount, rating of the defense (clearly subjecting, but should be taken into account), end of game free throws out of desperation... So many complicated factors. It's way too easy to look at say "11-38, we got hosed."

Though I am a noted anti-complaining guy (I complain about complaining... irony much?) - I have no issue with K taking our case to the globe. That's his job in his place and he knows far better than I do what is worthwhile and what isn't.

[Trinity09]

I was doing some research for my bracket picks and I noticed this striking statistic.

Villanova took 801 three point attempts this season. They took 993 2 point attempts. That means 44.6% of their shot attempts are from three.

In contrast, Duke took 764 threes this season. They took 1194 twos. So 39% of Duke's shots are from three.

Yet Villanova attempted 801 free throws. Duke attempted 770. Dumbfounding. I always hear about how teams that jack up threes are supposed to never get to the FT line...


Interesting find, but I think we need more data before saying "see, Duke's getting the shaft!" I'd love to see a map of where Duke and Nova take their twos. Anecdotally, anyway, I think a relatively large portion of Duke's twos are mid-range jumpers (Hood, Parker, and Sulaimon, in particular) and long-ish floaters (Cook). Those kinds of shots don't draw contact like closer shots--ie: driving layups, shots set up by post moves--typically do. Maybe Nova simply takes more "physical" twos than does Duke? I haven't seen them play enough to comment.

[FerryFor50]

Well, I think a decent chunk of that is quality of competition. Duke played a tougher schedule, and as a result lost a few more games than Villanova.

When you're leading late, you're going to shoot more free throws. And Villanova was leading late a bit more often than Duke.

Also, that doesn't take into account true "and-1s" vs shooting fouls that result in a missed FG. If you get fouled on a shot and don't make it, that will not count in your FGA and will add an extra FTA. If you get fouled but make the shot, that is an extra FGA AND you get one less FT.

So between the quality of competition, the slight reduction in number of games in which the team in question was leading late, and the uncertainty about "and 1s", I don't find any of these numbers all that unreasonable.

I'm not as concerned with Duke's lack of FTs in comparison to Nova. I'm just shocked that a team that jacks up so many threes (and that wasn't in that many close games) got to the line so much.

[FerryFor50]

Interesting find, but I think we need more data before saying "see, Duke isn't getting the calls!" I'd love to see a map of where Duke and Nova take their twos. Anecdotally, anyway, I think a relatively large portion of Duke's twos are mid-range jumpers (Hood, Parker, and Sulaimon, in particular) and long-ish floaters (Cook). Those kinds of shots don't draw contact like closer shots--ie: driving layups, shots set up by post moves--typically do. Maybe Nova simply takes more "physical" twos than does Duke? I haven't seen them play enough to comment.

Yea, I don't know. I was just shocked that a team that takes 45% of their shots from three got to the line so much... It would be interesting to see where the shots came from. But just on the eye test, I recall Duke driving a lot more in the 2nd half of the season than settling for long 2 point jumpers, with Hood being the exception.

[Newton_14]

It would be really interesting to develop a tight analysis of a simple thing like "free throws attempted." I mean, looking at where you are shooting from, if you are ahead or behind and by what amount, rating of the defense (clearly subjecting, but should be taken into account), end of game free throws out of desperation... So many complicated factors. It's way too easy to look at say "11-30, we got hosed."

Though I am a noted anti-complaining guy (I complain about complaining... irony much?) - I have no issue with K taking our case to the globe. That's his job in his place and he knows far better than I do what is worthwhile and what isn't.

Which is why I feel it validates the complaints about the ref's yesterday. Were it not a valid complaint, no way K brings it up in the presser or talks about it on Feinstein today. While I did not leave the building yesterday with the thought that 'the refs gave uva the game", I did leave smh at how the game was called. The thing with Jabari, and to a lesser degree Rasheed, it has been happening all year. Even in the UVA game in Cameron, Jabari got hammered several times that night in the post with nothing called. He only scored 8 points that night.

[CDu]

I'm not as concerned with Duke's lack of FTs in comparison to Nova. I'm just shocked that a team that jacks up so many threes (and that wasn't in that many close games) got to the line so much.

That's a common misconception. Jacking up a bunch of 3s doesn't preclude a team from shooting a lot of free throws. Over half of Villanova's FGA are from 2pt range, and as I said before that doesn't take into account those 2pt FGA that were missed but drew fouls.

Heck, look at guys like Jon Scheyer, Seth Curry, Jason Williams, JJ Redick, etc. Those guys took nearly half their shots (or more) from 3pt range, but still shot a TON of free throws.

[FerryFor50]

Which is why I feel it validates the complaints about the ref's yesterday. Were it not a valid complaint, no way K brings it up in the presser or talks about it on Feinstein today. While I did not leave the building yesterday with the thought that 'the refs gave uva the game", I did leave smh at how the game was called. The thing with Jabari, and to a lesser degree Rasheed, it has been happening all year. Even in the UVA game in Cameron, Jabari got hammered several times that night in the post with nothing called. He only scored 8 points that night.

I'll say it - the officiating cost Duke a chance to win that game. Bottom line. A 27 FT discrepancy - in addition to the foul trouble forcing your defense to ease up a bit (which is how UVA started scoring more) and the tendency to stop trying to drive because you know you're not going to get the call - will cost you games. Allowing UVA bigs to set moving screens to allow their shooters to hit game changing threes will cost you games.

I don't think UVA was the "better team" on Sunday. Yes, they won. But I think they were allowed to play their brand of defense liberally, which was a disadvantage to Duke. The only way Duke wins the game under those conditions is if they get scorching hot from three.

Did Duke deserve many of the fouls they got called for? Absolutely. They got lazy on defense at times. Did UVA deserve to be called for more fouls? Definitely. But they weren't, so they never had to ease up on defense, and all they had to do was hit FTs (which they at around their season rate of 66%).

In a game that was within 3-6 points with 2 minutes left, you think Duke could have used 10 more free throw attempts?

[sporthenry]

I'm not as concerned with Duke's lack of FTs in comparison to Nova. I'm just shocked that a team that jacks up so many threes (and that wasn't in that many close games) got to the line so much.

Nova is a really strange team. They would be Daryl Morey's team if he had one. It is either good 2 point shot or 3. They have 4 guys in that 6'5-6'6 range who can all shoot it/drive it. Each of them have varying success doing either but that is essentially their MO. Ochefu provides enough down low and Arcidiacono can shoot it.

I'd imagine that is why their offense is top 20. They are fairly efficient b/c they shoot a ton of 3's but also get fouled.

[FerryFor50]

Nova is a really strange team. They would be Daryl Morey's team if he had one. It is either good 2 point shot or 3. They have 4 guys in that 6'5-6'6 range who can all shoot it/drive it. Each of them have varying success doing either but that is essentially their MO. Ochefu provides enough down low and Arcidiacono can shoot it.

I'd imagine that is why their offense is top 20. They are fairly efficient b/c they shoot a ton of 3's but also get fouled.

Yea but when they meet up with a team that does it better (Creighton) they get destroyed. ;)

I'd like Duke's chances against Nova, but I don't think we'll see that this year.

[Mike Corey]

Coach K is angry right before the tournament?

Yes, please.

[sporthenry]

Yea but when they meet up with a team that does it better (Creighton) they get destroyed. ;)

I'd like Duke's chances against Nova, but I don't think we'll see that this year.

Yeah, no doubt. Not sure that style of play is conducive to winning it all (granted we'll see that play out more in the NBA than college). I'm not a big believer in Nova but given the right match ups, which I haven't really analyzed, they could give some teams trouble.

That said, I hate the match up for Duke. Tall, long, athletic and active on defense has given Duke trouble and they use penetration to open up 3's which would be all the time against Duke. Granted Duke doesn't give up many 3's, but I suppose that is b/c they are too busy giving up lay ups (I kid, at least a little bit).

[superdave]

Coach K on EspnU coming up shortly.

The show is Katz Korner.

[OldPhiKap]

Coach K on EspnU coming up shortly.

The show is Katz Korner.

I think he is scheduled for Sprockets at 11:30.

Regarding foul calls yesterday, I just did not see any big ref problem frankly. The problem was that UVa played defense much better than we did. And we got two T's, which adds to the opponent's FT shooting figures. Plus we were behind and had to start fouling . . . .

Props to UVa. Next play.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Coach K is angry right before the tournament?

Yes, please.

This is what I'm most excited about it. No team reflects the mood of it's coach more than Duke under K.

I hope this team DOES feel disrespected. I hope they DO feel they have something to prove.

I can't wait to see an angry Duke team the rest of March(and April?).:D

[superdave]

Coach said he thought his team was still getting better. He said with Jabari as the teams best player he cannot lean on a veteran like Kelly or Scheyer. He has to lead himself. (Hmmm Quinn/Andre/Tyler).

He also said when asked that he thought a panel of ex coaches should review the Selection Committes work before its released.

At the end if the day I am glad K thinks this team is still improving.

[killerleft]

I kind of wish he'd wait until things calmed down before making these comments.

http://feinstein.radio.cbssports.com/2014/03/17/mike-krzyzewski-announcers-talk-show-hosts-wont-say-anything-about-calls-for-virginia-in-acc-championship-game/

It was today or never. He was measured, calm, and spoke the truth as he sees it. Good on our Coach K. Especially the part about not having a press corp to protect us. I wonder who he was maybe saying DOES have such an advantage?:cool: Tell 'em, Coach!

[Reilly]

... He also said when asked that he thought a panel of ex coaches should review the Selection Committes work before its released. ....

On the NIT selection show on espnU yesterday, the chair Carroll Williams talked about how the NIT committee is made up of old coaches, and how they argued over the teams, and how he thought they probably extended invites more on the eye test than how the NCAA committee goes about things. Televise all committee deliberations -- let the sunshine in, would be great theatre for hoops junkies and conspiracy theorists.

[Furniture]

If the "Duke gets all the calls" message keeps popping up then eventually people are going to believe it and it's going to possibly affect game results. Sitting next to State fans last Saturday, I could almost feel the 'o not again' every time NCS got a foul called on them. Somebody needed to say something to defend duke!
Nobody better than K.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Coach K is angry right before the tournament?

Yes, please.

He was pretty angry at halftime yesterday also.

SoCal

[Sixthman]

I think he is scheduled for Sprockets at 11:30.

Regarding foul calls yesterday, I just did not see any big ref problem frankly. The problem was that UVa played defense much better than we did. And we got two T's, which adds to the opponent's FT shooting figures. Plus we were behind and had to start fouling . . . .

Props to UVa. Next play.

I agree props to UVA, but to attribute this to UVA being better makes them much, much, much, better. Before the second technical, and before the first intentional foul, the free throw attempt disparity was 30-9. It was also the case that for crucial minutes down the stretch, Duke played less effectively, because of 3 players with 4 fouls. In this context, it is beyond contention that the fouls were the reason UVA won. The only question is, did they earn the foul disparity due to the quality of their play. I for one think they earned 50% more foul calls than Duke, not 315%. As for the Technical on K, good officials are always looking for a way to avoid calling a technical. This official, literally, did the opposite. In the face of that, it is hard to fault anyone for questioning whether the temperament of the officials also contributed to the foul disparity.

[OldPhiKap]

I agree props to UVA, but to attribute this to UVA being better makes them much, much, much, better. Before the second technical, and before the first intentional foul, the free throw attempt disparity was 30-9. It was also the case that for crucial minutes down the stretch, Duke played less effectively, because of 3 players with 4 fouls. In this context, it is beyond contention that the fouls were the reason UVA won. The only question is, did they earn the foul disparity due to the quality of their play. I for one think they earned 50% more foul calls than Duke, not 315%. As for the Technical on K, good officials are always looking for a way to avoid calling a technical. This official, literally, did the opposite. In the face of that, it is hard to fault anyone for questioning whether the temperament of the officials also contributed to the foul disparity.

Well, but I think free throw attempts is the wrong metric. Was it a shooting foul? Two-pointer or three? Did the shot fall, or do you get the full array of shots on the line? Bonus or double bonus? Did you hit the front end of your one-and-one? etc. Plus the technicals. Plus needing to intentionally foul at the end, which artificially inflates the "disparity."

In the first half:

Virginia was called for 6 fouls. We only took three 3 free throw attempts as a result of those six fouls.
Duke was called for 12 fouls. Virginia took 14 free throw attempts as a result of those fouls.

So, one could say that we had twice as many fouls yet gave up almost five times as many free throw attempts. But that dispartiy does not tell us much.

It is harder to tell in the second half which fouls were intentional (at least without taking a deeper look) but we ended up with a personal foul call disparity of 29 to 15. I would be happy to say that in any game there is variance to which those numbers would be closer, and perhaps we are on the wider end of that variance. But at its root, the cause is the fact that UVa played better defense IMO and we did in fact foul more than they did. Folks can differ on that.

Last point, Duke has made a living -- even from K's early days -- making more free throws than the opponents even attempt. I do not think we get very far arguing that free throw attempts should all be around even. We historically come out on the better end of this ratio, in this game we did not. Credit UVa for playing through tired better than we did.

[weezie]

Here's hoping that K's opinions are noted at the post season "inside" the ACC conference on refereeing. Haven't we at some point discussed how refs are graded and reviewed by the league and the coaches, all out of earshot of we, the unwashed, of course.
But, meh, they probably won't be.

We get all the calls and we whine too much.... how can we live with ourselves? :rolleyes:

[oldnavy]

I think that the refs and officiating this year has been awful... all the way around. It started with the new emphasis on whatever the heck they wanted to stop, but it has led to overcalling games IMO....

I believe that a good number of fouls that are called should be "play on"... I don't enjoy watching 40+ FT's per game....

Just my opinion, but I like the game better without hearing the whistle blow 40-50 times a game... If you want to see a ballet, then go to the ballet, basketball is a contact sport.

There are more than enough fouls that actually matter that can be called without calling all the BS touch fouls that don't influence the play one way or the other.

And the Tech on K was bush league.... I have seen way more antics that go uncalled than what he did... Did Roy get a Tech for throwing his jacket?? Nope, and he shouldn't have... neither should K for throwing his pen on the ground.... big freakin whoop.

The best refs to me are the ones I don't have any idea what their names are....

OH, and btw... Congrats to UVA... they won the game and I think that the calls had very little to do with it. We could have won, but UVA deserved the win, they are a very good team and I will be pulling hard for them in the tournament.

[Furniture]

I agree props to UVA, but to attribute this to UVA being better makes them much, much, much, better. Before the second technical, and before the first intentional foul, the free throw attempt disparity was 30-9. It was also the case that for crucial minutes down the stretch, Duke played less effectively, because of 3 players with 4 fouls. In this context, it is beyond contention that the fouls were the reason UVA won. The only question is, did they earn the foul disparity due to the quality of their play. I for one think they earned 50% more foul calls than Duke, not 315%. As for the Technical on K, good officials are always looking for a way to avoid calling a technical. This official, literally, did the opposite. In the face of that, it is hard to fault anyone for questioning whether the temperament of the officials also contributed to the foul disparity.

I tried to say something similar to this but I am just not as smart as you. Anyway, this sums the situation exactly the way I see it! Perfect.

[77devil]

This isn't Coach K's first rodeo. You can bet he did not make the remarks off the cuff.

Incidentally, St. Joe's coach Phil Martelli isn't enamored with Jamie Luckie either.

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/06/phil-martelli-is-not-happy-with-jamie-luckie/

[uh_no]

This isn't Coach K's first rodeo. You can bet he did not make the remarks off the cuff.

Incidentally, St. Joe's coach Phil Martelli doesn't care for Jamie Luckie either.

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/06/phil-martelli-is-not-happy-with-jamie-luckie/

jamie luckie is in the TV ted school of coaching...but only half as flamboyant (and perhaps half as competent)....

[-jk]

I think that the refs and officiating this year has been awful... all the way around. It started with the new emphasis on whatever the heck they wanted to stop, but it has led to overcalling games IMO....

I believe that a good number of fouls that are called should be "play on"... I don't enjoy watching 40+ FT's per game....

Just my opinion, but I like the game better without hearing the whistle blow 40-50 times a game... If you want to see a ballet, then go to the ballet, basketball is a contact sport.

There are more than enough fouls that actually matter that can be called without calling all the BS touch fouls that don't influence the play one way or the other.

And the Tech on K was bush league.... I have seen way more antics that go uncalled than what he did... Did Roy get a Tech for throwing his jacket?? Nope, and he shouldn't have... neither should K for throwing his pen on the ground.... big freakin whoop.

The best refs to me are the ones I don't have any idea what their names are....

OH, and btw... Congrats to UVA... they won the game and I think that the calls had very little to do with it. We could have won, but UVA deserved the win, they are a very good team and I will be pulling hard for them in the tournament.

I really miss when basketball was a flowy sport. Touch fouls? Bring 'em back! Let 'em play? Let 'em move! Hip checks? Push-offs? Arm bars? Moving screens? Should be a foul each and every time.

-jk

[wilko]

I really miss when basketball was a flowy sport. Touch fouls? Bring 'em back! Let 'em play? Let 'em move! Hip checks? Push-offs? Arm bars? Moving screens? Should be a foul each and every time.

-jk

The concept of "advantage" is a bit too nebulous and abstract to me....
If its an infraction and you see it call it !!! NOT doing so creates an advantage for the OTHER team.

[roywhite]

Nor do I. In addition to the no calls in the paint, Jabari got hit on practically everyone of his jumpshot attempts, Andre got fouled on the steal that led to the ensuing Technical, and Andre got fouled by Harris on the drive attempt late in the game. That same type contact was called all day on one end, but rarely called on the opposite end. Maybe UVA wins anyway, who knows. They are a great team. It would have just been nice to see what would have happened if the game was called pretty evenly. For K to be discussing it in the post-game presser and again today is pretty damning. He is in unchartered territory. I dont recall many times K touched this subject since the famous 'double standard' presser back in the early-mid 80's with the Dean thing. Like I said last night I would have much preffered having Karl Hess over Jamie Luckie.


Which is why I feel it validates the complaints about the ref's yesterday. Were it not a valid complaint, no way K brings it up in the presser or talks about it on Feinstein today. While I did not leave the building yesterday with the thought that 'the refs gave uva the game", I did leave smh at how the game was called. The thing with Jabari, and to a lesser degree Rasheed, it has been happening all year. Even in the UVA game in Cameron, Jabari got hammered several times that night in the post with nothing called. He only scored 8 points that night.


. I definitely do think we got the raw end of the officiating in that game, though. Most notably Parker (on offense) and Jefferson (on defense).

But regardless of what happened yesterday, I am totally okay with Coach K making comments to the media. For so long people have been allowed to say whatever they want. But Coach K has been long silent on officiating (in large part because we tended to get our fair share of bad calls in our favor). But his job as a coach is to do whatever he can to help his team win. And if he feels that speaking out against officiating will help this team in the tournament, that's just fine.

I think a big part of the issue is that we've adjusted to be a more aggressive team going to the basket. Sulaimon, Hood, and Parker have all started making concerted efforts to go strong to the basket. Yet in spite of that, we're still not getting a lot of calls going to the hoop.

Jabari has become the anti-Hansbrough for some ACC officials. Tyler was the hard-working every man just trying to get to the hoop and got the benefit of most whistles when contact occurred. Jabari the young, talented emerging super star, is expected to overcome a little contact without the benefit of a foul call. It is a huge double standard.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Coach K works the officials as much as any coach in the country. It's often been a common complaint from other coaches that officials engage with him more than the opponent coach. He will try to intimidate refs, loudly and often with an angry demeanor. I don't think many of you doubt that.
There are many times I wonder why he does not get at least a warning, if not a T for an outburst at an official, but I recognize he gets a lot of leeway...which I'll accept he has earned over the course of his career.

To their credit, the refs usually let him vent and go about calling the game, and I don't see any pattern of unfair calls...for or against Duke.... in response to his actions.

In the UVA game, he evidently said something or did something over the line to get that T, stuff happens. Not a big deal. Coaches sometimes get technicals.

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled....and it's a backhanded way of detracting from UVA's hard earned win.

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.

[Sixthman]

Well, but I think free throw attempts is the wrong metric. Was it a shooting foul? Two-pointer or three? Did the shot fall, or do you get the full array of shots on the line? Bonus or double bonus? Did you hit the front end of your one-and-one? etc. Plus the technicals. Plus needing to intentionally foul at the end, which artificially inflates the "disparity."

In the first half:

Virginia was called for 6 fouls. We only took three 3 free throw attempts as a result of those six fouls.
Duke was called for 12 fouls. Virginia took 14 free throw attempts as a result of those fouls.

So, one could say that we had twice as many fouls yet gave up almost five times as many free throw attempts. But that dispartiy does not tell us much.

It is harder to tell in the second half which fouls were intentional (at least without taking a deeper look) but we ended up with a personal foul call disparity of 29 to 15.

Your point is well taken. I am pretty comfortable with my count on which fouls were intentional and which were not. Another metric which is more difficult to measure, but I think relevant, is where the shots are occurring. It is just plain more difficult to defend a talented athlete without fouling when he is going toward the basket and is near the basket, unless you have both a lot of skill AND a size or conditioning advantage. I have felt all season that Hood and Sulaimon have driven hard to the rim and not gotten the call. I am convinced that there is something about the way they handle the contact that is keeping them from getting the call (as opposed to an officiating conspiracy). This has not been an issue for Parker, until Sunday, when I felt his aggressive moves near the rim were met with contact but no call. Perhaps consistent within the game -- I don't know -- but different than what I have seen over the season.

[BobBender]

He was pretty angry at halftime yesterday also.

SoCal

Coach K has been lionized by the ESPN group for a long time, and opponent's fans see the formula as : "Duke gets ratings, what's good for Duke is good for ESPN". So people noticed for two decades that Duke consistently made more FT's than opponents attempted, especially at Cameron.
As the premier coach in college basketball, maybe the camera seeks out K more than other HC's because of his stature in the game. There is an outburst at almost every call these days, at the very least a snarl directed the officials. And then the assistants get in on it, with histrionics of their own. Certainly more evident to me than any other staff I have seen this year.
The point is these officials have egos too. The anger evident on all but the most obvious calls has probably gotten under Luckie's skin. And don't think opponents have not pointed out to the ACC office that our players seem to be coached to kick out their legs after releasing long jumpers to draw contact. That trick worked for many years, JJ perfected it. But that play is rarely called in our favor anymore.

[Furniture]

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled....and it's a backhanded way of detracting from UVA's hard earned win.

Really?

Saying something like this might make you look bad to people around here Wheat. You probably don't care.
Why should anyone care about how you/we look? Especially on a Duke fan forum.

[turnandburn55]

I tend to agree with Wheat. We got beat to the basket a number of times, and gave up an alarming number of second chance opportunities down the stretch-- usually it's on those sort of broken plays that the team at a disadvantage gets caught fouling, and we were it. We've been on the other side of this equation a million times, and that's exactly how we would answer fans who would cite wide FT disparities. It sucks to have the shoe on the other foot, but it's a consequence of crappy play on our behalf...

The comment about Jabari being a victim of his own success is valid-- when you're bigger, stronger, and more athletic than your opponents, a lot of fouls go unnoticed because the fouling just looks different. A lot of big men in the NBA have complained about that over the years as well. It's an interesting observation, although I don't see it as a de facto sign of bad officiating.

I do agree the technical was a bit much. Imagine if the ACC Championship had been decided on that basis? The officials have to set the bar a little higher for that...

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Jabari has become the anti-Hansbrough for some ACC officials. Tyler was the hard-working every man just trying to get to the hoop and got the benefit of most whistles when contact occurred. Jabari the young, talented emerging super star, is expected to overcome a little contact without the benefit of a foul call. It is a huge double standard.

The UNC fan perspective...

I always thought that there could have been a lot more fouls called for hacking Hansbrough than there were. There was contact on him almost every play, and he relished it. He finished through contact as well as any NCAA player, ever.

His deal was he always got the ball in the low post and was so strong. He raced to his spot on the floor under the basket, got in a low stance, and he could not be displaced. And He was first option for an entry pass. It frustrated defenders and caused them to become overly aggressive, leading to fouls. Every player always thought they could pack his lunch too, leaving their feet, and some did, but he used head fakes, timing, and feel to draw the contact. He was very good at that, and it's a talent that the best post players have.

Parker has good post scoring moves too, and gets his fair share of trips to the line that way as well.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Really?

Saying something like this might make you look bad to people around here Wheat. You probably don't care.
Why should anyone care about how you/we look? Especially on a Duke fan forum.

I just put out my opinions straight up and let the chips fall.

People who know me around here know I respect Duke, coach K and this site.

[kshepinthehouse]

The UNC fan perspective...

I always thought that there could have been a lot more fouls called for hacking Hansbrough than there were. There was contact on him almost every play, and he relished it. He finished through contact as well as any NCAA player, ever.

His deal was he always got the ball in the low post and was so strong. He raced to his spot on the floor under the basket, got in a low stance, and he could not be displaced. And He was first option for an entry pass. It frustrated defenders and caused them to become overly aggressive, leading to fouls. Every player always thought they could pack his lunch too, leaving their feet, and some did, but he used head fakes, timing, and feel to draw the contact. He was very good at that, and it's a talent that the best post players have.

Parker has good post scoring moves too, and gets his fair share of trips to the line that way as well.

You forgot the Hansbrough hop. And wasn't there some stat out there something like Hansbrough shot more free throws than any player in ACC history. No way could he have gotten more attempts. If he shot the ball close in a foul was called. No one was even allowed to breath on that guy.

[Sixthman]

Coach K works the officials as much as any coach in the country. It's often been a common complaint from other coaches that officials engage with him more than the opponent coach. He will try to intimidate refs, loudly and often with an angry demeanor. I don't think many of you doubt that.
There are many times I wonder why he does not get at least a warning, if not a T for an outburst at an official, but I recognize he gets a lot of leeway...which I'll accept he has earned over the course of his career.

To their credit, the refs usually let him vent and go about calling the game, and I don't see any pattern of unfair calls...for or against Duke.... in response to his actions.

In the UVA game, he evidently said something or did something over the line to get that T, stuff happens. Not a big deal. Coaches sometimes get technicals.

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled....and it's a backhanded way of detracting from UVA's hard earned win.

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.

There is no doubt Coach K works the officials. That is part of his job. The times he does, he is neither louder, nor more angry than any other coach. However, the idea that K works the officials more than the opponents was true twenty-five years ago, but is not true now. Since the late 1990s, he works the officials significantly less than others. Maybe this is because with his seniority, a little bit of working goes a long way. Still, a typical game in Cameron, for the last fifteen years, will see the opposing coach on his feet working the refs five to ten times more than K. Coach K is rarely on his feet during live action, tending to address the refs mostly during dead balls. Sometimes an opposing coach will never sit down during a game in Cameron and typically opposing coaches will complain about something every time the ref passes their bench. Again, at least at home, coach K vents at the refs far less than any current ACC coach. Of course, a Duke hater would say that if any of this is true, it is because Duke gets all the calls in Cameron, hence there is no need to work the officials.
If we could find that small subset of fans who were neither (a) Duke fans; (b) Virginia fans; or (c) Duke haters (not just the self avowed Haters, but the closet Haters as well), we could ask them whether they thought the ACC Championship game was called poorly, and it might be interesting and meaningful. As I said in an earlier post, the free throw disparity decided the game. The only question is whether Virginia earned that disparity.

[NashvilleDevil]

Jabari has become the anti-Hansbrough for some ACC officials. Tyler was the hard-working every man just trying to get to the hoop and got the benefit of most whistles when contact occurred. Jabari the young, talented emerging super star, is expected to overcome a little contact without the benefit of a foul call. It is a huge double standard.

Couldn't spork you but this is spot on in my opinion.

[DBFAN]

While the numbers from yesterday and the last 4 losses say a lot, we don't even have to look at them. All you have to do is watch the game, and you can CLEARLY see the double standard being out out there.

First thing you have to see is the severity of fouls allowed for UVA, Cuse, ie any other team we play. Jabari has been hammered all year long, an for someone who is second in the league in scoring, he doesn't get to the line enough. But when any player from the opposing team gets near the basket, the refs are already taking in a breath to blow the whistle. Heck we even miss the player and ball totally, and the whistle is already blown

The second thing that is problematic is play on the perimeter. While the supposed hand check and arm bar rule has been in place, you can watch and see it's not the same for everyone. Our guards may be slower, but that has nothing to do with a foul being a foul. When your guards are ridden all the way down the lane and it's only called once or twice a game, it's a problem. When you guard dives on the floor to fight for a ball, and the other team jumps on top of your guard, yet consistently throughout the season, your players get a foul called it's a problem. Ugh I could go on an on about the perimeter officiating and the Garbage they are calling

My last thought is this. I have watched Sheed all year long getting very frustrated with the officials. It wasn't a one game thing, I am as glad as anyone he said something yesterday, because it was absute junk that UVA is allowed to make contact on every play, and yet they take twice as many FT attempts is just silly. I also think this is why Marshall doesn't play more, because he has the Zoubek effect. If he was near the play, then obviously he had to foul

My last thing (I promise). This is not to sound rude or snobby or anything, but I find it amazing that so many of these teams with less talented players, have managed to fool the sports world. Generally speaking if players are more talented or at least considered to be, there is a reason why the other teams foul, because they are getting beat. Yet for some reason the teams with less talent seem to get less fouls called on them. Because plain and simple, the media, and the NCAA need games to be close because nobody watches a blowout

[kcduke75]

His deal was he always got the ball in the low post and was so strong. He raced to his spot on the floor under the basket, got in a low stance, and he could not be displaced. And He was first option for an entry pass. It frustrated defenders and caused them to become overly aggressive, leading to fouls. Every player always thought they could pack his lunch too, leaving their feet, and some did, but he used head fakes, timing, and feel to draw the contact. He was very good at that, and it's a talent that the best post players have.

Trivia question, in Coach Knight's instructional video for NCAA officials on traveling, was it 10, 12, or 15 steps that Hans took without a travel call?

I think uncalled happy feet were part of his secret to success - in addition to what you identify.

[kshepinthehouse]

Trivia question, in Coach Knight's instructional video for NCAA officials on traveling, was it 10, 12, or 15 steps that Hans took without a travel call?

I think uncalled happy feet were part of his secret to success - in addition to what you identify.

I believe it was 7 lol

[DBFAN]

Hmm if it were the same why didn't Roy get a T when he ripped off his watch at City Hall. That was a reaction, and I would have a hard time believing that the marker was so much worse. Doesn't make us look bad, makes us look like humans who are tired if the age old wives tale that we get all the calls. BTW didn't Jamie call an unreasonable tech on someone else this year. I'm not positive it was him, but regardless the announcers in that game and ESPN for the next 24 hours were just so amazed tht the ref called a tech that early. But you know since K does all these other horrible thing that every other coach in America doesn't do, then K deserved it

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Trivia question, in Coach Knight's instructional video for NCAA officials on traveling, was it 10, 12, or 15 steps that Hans took without a travel call?

I think uncalled happy feet were part of his secret to success - in addition to what you identify.

TH was no worse than many other players who occasionally travel, especially after the contact he often received.

Coach knight might have used this play a teachable moment as well....


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFDIkJKDXM

[-jk]

Coach K works the officials as much as any coach in the country. It's often been a common complaint from other coaches that officials engage with him more than the opponent coach. He will try to intimidate refs, loudly and often with an angry demeanor. I don't think many of you doubt that.
There are many times I wonder why he does not get at least a warning, if not a T for an outburst at an official, but I recognize he gets a lot of leeway...which I'll accept he has earned over the course of his career.

To their credit, the refs usually let him vent and go about calling the game, and I don't see any pattern of unfair calls...for or against Duke.... in response to his actions.

In the UVA game, he evidently said something or did something over the line to get that T, stuff happens. Not a big deal. Coaches sometimes get technicals.

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled....and it's a backhanded way of detracting from UVA's hard earned win.

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.

Unfortunately, all you ever see is what TV shows. K spends most of his time on the bench. Not even walking around next to the bench these days (those damned fake hips). But TV never shows him sitting there, talking to his hand. As soon as he stands up to talk to players or officials, though, TV focuses on him.

It's a skewed view of K. But we're used to the skewed view.

-jk

[kshepinthehouse]

Hmm if it were the same why didn't Roy get a T when he ripped off his watch at City Hall. That was a reaction, and I would have a hard time believing that the marker was so much worse. Doesn't make us look bad, makes us look like humans who are tired if the age old wives tale that we get all the calls. BTW didn't Jamie call an unreasonable tech on someone else this year. I'm not positive it was him, but regardless the announcers in that game and ESPN for the next 24 hours were just so amazed tht the ref called a tech that early. But you know since K does all these other horrible thing that every other coach in America doesn't do, then K deserved it

How about whenever Roy sat down on the floor after a call?

[FerryFor50]

My last thought is this. I have watched Sheed all year long getting very frustrated with the officials. It wasn't a one game thing, I am as glad as anyone he said something yesterday, because it was absute junk that UVA is allowed to make contact on every play, and yet they take twice as many FT attempts is just silly.


Correction. UVA took nearly FOUR times as many FTs. It was 38-11.

[FerryFor50]

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled....and it's a backhanded way of detracting from UVA's hard earned win.

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.

After decades of hearing every single fanbase, the media, opposing coaches and announcers complaining about Duke getting all the calls, with Duke fans left on the defensive, I think we're allowed a little freedom to gripe on a Duke basketball fan site when our team gets outshot 4:1 from the FT line.

I hear nothing but whining from the UNC fanbase every year, including this one.

[Newton_14]

Coach K works the officials as much as any coach in the country. It's often been a common complaint from other coaches that officials engage with him more than the opponent coach. He will try to intimidate refs, loudly and often with an angry demeanor. I don't think many of you doubt that.
There are many times I wonder why he does not get at least a warning, if not a T for an outburst at an official, but I recognize he gets a lot of leeway...which I'll accept he has earned over the course of his career.

To their credit, the refs usually let him vent and go about calling the game, and I don't see any pattern of unfair calls...for or against Duke.... in response to his actions.

In the UVA game, he evidently said something or did something over the line to get that T, stuff happens. Not a big deal. Coaches sometimes get technicals.

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled....and it's a backhanded way of detracting from UVA's hard earned win.

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.

Thanks Wheat. Glad you feel bringing up the refs makes us look bad. I will not sleep a wink tonight worrying about that perception. There is nothing we could ever do or say to approach the level of idiot that is IC and the UNC mainstream fanbase either.

All we have heard since the 2001 FF is "Duke gets all the Calls" and the voice hasn't been fans. It has been led by the real media (CBS, SI, ESPN, TV, Radio, Newspapers) and then repeated ad nauseum by coaches, players, sports talk radio, bloggers, etc. The grandest conspiracy of them all. All that nonsense did was ensure ref's go out of their way to seem to not be favoring Duke, (kind of like Bilas overrotating to not seem biased).

So I guess that means all those people "look bad" and are "entitled to watch Duke never get a fair call".

The game yesterday was very similar to the 2005 game in Wake when all our starters fouled out and Daniel Ewing got a technical because he allowed Chris Paul to slam his head against the floor in a loose ball scrum. Guess the ref thought Ewing should have had stronger neck muscles or something.

[FerryFor50]

Thanks Wheat. Glad you feel bringing up the refs makes us look bad. I will not sleep a wink tonight worrying about that perception. There is nothing we could ever do or say to approach the level of idiot that is IC and the UNC mainstream fanbase either.

All we have heard since the 2001 FF is "Duke gets all the Calls" and the voice hasn't been fans. It has been led by the real media (CBS, SI, ESPN, TV, Radio, Newspapers) and then repeated ad nauseum by coaches, players, sports talk radio, bloggers, etc. The grandest conspiracy of them all. All that nonsense did was ensure ref's go out of their way to seem to not be favoring Duke, (kind of like Bilas overrotating to not seem biased).

So I guess that means all those people "look bad" and are "entitled to watch Duke never get a fair call".

The game yesterday was very similar to the 2005 game in Wake when all our starters fouled out and Daniel Ewing got a technical because he allowed Chris Paul to slam his head against the floor in a loose ball scrum. Guess the ref thought Ewing should have had stronger neck muscles or something.

Every time Daniel Ewing gets a technical, an angel gets its wings.

[-jk]

Every time Daniel Ewing gets a technical, an angel gets its wings.

Hmm... Lots of wings up there.

-jk

[Atlanta Duke]

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled...

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.

Perish the thought complaining about the disparity in fouls called yesterday and K complaining about how the game was called would lead fans of other teams to think Duke fans are entitled - here I thought Duke fans are universally beloved and seen as plucky underdogs:)

To paraphrase someone after the Syracuse-Kansas game in 2003, I don't give a s*** about what other fans think right now

[77devil]

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.

What is your source for that statement or is it just your uninformed opinion. Here is one informed opinion who also thinks Jamie Luckie is awful. Maybe the simplest explanation for Sunday is Jamie Luckie.

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/06/phil-martelli-is-not-happy-with-jamie-luckie/

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Thanks Wheat. Glad you feel bringing up the refs makes us look bad. I will not sleep a wink tonight worrying about that perception. There is nothing we could ever do or say to approach the level of idiot that is IC and the UNC mainstream fanbase either.

All we have heard since the 2001 FF is "Duke gets all the Calls" and the voice hasn't been fans. It has been led by the real media (CBS, SI, ESPN, TV, Radio, Newspapers) and then repeated ad nauseum by coaches, players, sports talk radio, bloggers, etc. The grandest conspiracy of them all. All that nonsense did was ensure ref's go out of their way to seem to not be favoring Duke, (kind of like Bilas overrotating to not seem biased).

So I guess that means all those people "look bad" and are "entitled to watch Duke never get a fair call".

The game yesterday was very similar to the 2005 game in Wake when all our starters fouled out and Daniel Ewing got a technical because he allowed Chris Paul to slam his head against the floor in a loose ball scrum. Guess the ref thought Ewing should have had stronger neck muscles or something.

What I find funny is that I heard all the same arguments you guys claim are made about Duke in the media these days from Duke fans all throughout Dean Smith's career about UNC getting all the calls, had an unfair advantage, UNC shot more foul shots, etc...refs were biased...yada, yada, yada.

It wasn't true then and it's not true now. The better the players, and the better the play...the more foul calls seem to go your way. Imagine that?

Refs make mistakes, and there are some games that are called poorly, that has been and always will be part of the game.

I come here because I don't generally see the level of posts here that we see on IC, or Devil's Den for that matter, it's not just some UNC fans out there behaving poorly.

I appreciate strong, well stated opinions, even when I don't agree.

Lately all the crying about the refs just seems to be getting old, and unworthy of this board. But hey, that's just one mans opinion.

[ncexnyc]

What I find funny is that I heard all the same arguments you guys claim are made about Duke in the media these days from Duke fans all throughout Dean Smith's career about UNC getting all the calls, had an unfair advantage, UNC shot more foul shots, etc...refs were biased...yada, yada, yada.

It wasn't true then and it's not true now. The better the players, and the better the play...the more foul calls seem to go your way. Imagine that?

Refs make mistakes, and there are some games that are called poorly, that has been and always will be part of the game.

I come here because I don't generally see the level of posts here that we see on IC, or Devil's Den for that matter, it's not just some UNC fans out there behaving poorly.

I appreciate strong, well stated opinions, even when I don't agree.

Lately all the crying about the refs just seems to be getting old, and unworthy of this board. But hey, that's just one mans opinion.
I enjoy having you here as you definitely bring a different view, unfortunately on this matter with your numerous posts you appear to be trolling

[jipops]

I think the point is being missed here by some, especially by our UNC friend Wheat. K is not complaining about the foul disparity. He is calling BS on the Duke gets all the calls narrative. If the shoe were on the other foot there would be a twitter hashtag about it immediately after the game and the bulk of the focus of espn's game highlights. To the press corps a 38-11 foul discrepancy is just part of the game (and in this case I agree), but if the discrepancy is in Duke's favor, well that becomes the story.

His one complaint about the officiating which involved the technical was also dead on. K's back was turned as he tossed a pen and Luckie was 80ft away. It's a serious reach to defend that one.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I enjoy having you here as you definitely bring a different view, unfortunately on this matter with your numerous posts you appear to be trolling

I never troll.

And I am happy to let it rest and move on.

[duke4ever19]

What is your source for that statement or is it just your uninformed opinion. Here is one informed opinion who also thinks Jamie Luckie is awful. Maybe the simplest explanation for Sunday is Jamie Luckie.

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/06/phil-martelli-is-not-happy-with-jamie-luckie/

Wow. What a great find.

My step-father refereed games in the DII for many years (now retired), and although I didn't watch yesterday's game with him, he is fond of pointing out that referees can be just as petty as the rest of us, although they are certainly supposed to be "above it" (He has a lot of stories on this subject). He agreed with Bilas' call to end the berating of refs regularly doled out by college coaches (no surprise), however, it is not just because it is abusive or makes the sport look bad, but because it gives what are supposed to be impartial/objective refs a reason to "look the other way" on certain calls as a form of payback to a verbally abusive coach, or to go out of their way to favor the team who's players are not regularly giving them a "You're dumb as rocks, ref!" looks after routine calls.

Does Coach K "earn" some of these foul disparities by his on-court demeanor? Haven't thought about it in connection to K until yesterday, but it is certainly possible that it's happened a few times. Perhaps not yesterday, but I'm sure it has happened.

[bbosbbos]

The aim of our complain is that we want fairness in NCAA for Parker and our team. Losing to uva already happened, nothing gonna change the result.

Nobody knows how ncaa refs response in the big dance. At least K sent the message.

[BlueTeuf]

...unfair advantage, UNC shot more foul shots, etc...refs were biased...yada, yada, yada.

It wasn't true then and it's not true now. The better the players, and the better the play...the more foul calls seem to go your way. Imagine that?


Interesting perspective Wheat. For the sake of this discussion, let's accept your precept as fact - I'm certainly inclined to see it that way over a conspiracy theory. But please allow a follow-up question.


What I find funny is that I heard all the same arguments you guys claim are made about Duke in the media these days
What are you saying here - do you agree or disagree that Duke getting all the calls became an element of national conversation? Is it just my pro-Duke bias that sees key calls in Duke games dissected in the media with a repetition unmatched by any other program. Do you see it differently?

If not, how do you reconcile that observation with your "fact" that "It [referee bias] wasn't true then and it's not true now."

So, how did we get to where we are today? Does the media have a bias and have it all wrong?

[Newton_14]

What I find funny is that I heard all the same arguments you guys claim are made about Duke in the media these days from Duke fans all throughout Dean Smith's career about UNC getting all the calls, had an unfair advantage, UNC shot more foul shots, etc...refs were biased...yada, yada, yada.

It wasn't true then and it's not true now. The better the players, and the better the play...the more foul calls seem to go your way. Imagine that?

Refs make mistakes, and there are some games that are called poorly, that has been and always will be part of the game.

I come here because I don't generally see the level of posts here that we see on IC, or Devil's Den for that matter, it's not just some UNC fans out there behaving poorly.

I appreciate strong, well stated opinions, even when I don't agree.

Lately all the crying about the refs just seems to be getting old, and unworthy of this board. But hey, that's just one mans opinion.
Find me any kind of source where the National and Local media advanced or started the accusation that Dean Smith's UNC teams "got all the calls". Fans said that back then. Not National and Local Media, not Billy Packer, Jim Thacker, and Bones McKinney (the main tv crew back in those days). It was just fans who said it.

Big difference. I've lived here all 47 years of my life and followed ACC Basketball religiously. Have never read a single article, heard a single TV announcer, or heard a single ESPN segment that spoke of UNC "getting all the calls". With Duke the National Media has led that charge since Lonnie Baxter's 5th foul in the 2001 FF Semi's. It has never stopped in the 13 years since.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

TH was no worse than many other players who occasionally travel, especially after the contact he often received.

Coach knight might have used this play a teachable moment as well....


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFDIkJKDXM


NO, Wheat - Hanstravel did travel - regularly and with impunity.
Step after step after step.
It was almost laughable - and obvious.

[NSDukeFan]

Every time Daniel Ewing gets a technical, an angel gets its wings.

I sometimes feel like Hairston has two fouls before the ball is even inbounded. I agree that most of the calls are warranted, but he seems to get his fair share of "he is on the floor, play stopped, it must be a foul on Hairston."

[arnie]

I sometimes feel like Hairston has two fouls before the ball is even inbounded. I agree that most of the calls are warranted, but he seems to get his fair share of "he is on the floor, play stopped, it must be a foul on Hairston."

I don't think this helps our case - Hairston fouls when he is out of position, which happens frequently. He sometimes tries too hard to compensate for lack of mobility. Our guards; however, aren't given the same defensive latitude as other teams guards.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Interesting perspective Wheat. For the sake of this discussion, let's accept your precept as fact - I'm certainly inclined to see it that way over a conspiracy theory. But please allow a follow-up question.


What are you saying here - do you agree or disagree that Duke getting all the calls became an element of national conversation? Is it just my pro-Duke bias that sees key calls in Duke games dissected in the media with a repetition unmatched by any other program. Do you see it differently?

If not, how do you reconcile that observation with your "fact" that "It [referee bias] wasn't true then and it's not true now."

So, how did we get to where we are today? Does the media have a bias and have it all wrong?

Thanks for some reasonable questions, but I think I better just move on...the "troll" card has been played and I don't want to get anybody upset with my thoughts on all this.

[Steven43]

I will say all this complaining really makes your fan base look bad, and appears to other fans that Duke thinks they are entitled....and it's a backhanded way of detracting from UVA's hard earned win.

I think the vast majority of fans didn't see a game called all that poorly.Wheat, I think it is your baby blue glasses that kept you from seeing what appeared to be an obvious difference in how the game was being called when our guys would drive to the basket vs. when their guys would. Yes, most of the fouls called on Duke were technically correct, though there were a large number of ticky-tacky 'fouls' called against Duke defenders of the variety that used to not be called at all.

The problem is that they weren't calling those same types of transgressions against UVA defenders nearly as often. All we are asking for is equal treatment. That is not whining or taking away from UVA's win and it should not make us look bad. Fair is fair. Call it on both ends equally. I think you are out of line in talking to the Duke fanbase in that manner, particularly when we appear to have a legitimate beef.

[77devil]

Lately all the crying about the refs just seems to be getting old, and unworthy of this board. But hey, that's just one mans opinion.

Everyone is free to go elsewhere.

[BlueTeuf]

Thanks for some reasonable questions, but I think I better just move on...the "troll" card has been played and I don't want to get anybody upset with my thoughts on all this.

Copy; understood.

[crdaul]

Jamie Luckie also called the flagrant foul on Duke player a few games ago that was described as one of the worst calls ever by TV analysts...

[devildeac]

I sometimes feel like Hairston has two fouls before the ball is even inbounded. I agree that most of the calls are warranted, but he seems to get his fair share of "he is on the floor, play stopped, it must be a foul on Hairston."

Well, don't be surprised then when you see Okafor and T. Jones start their first ACC game next year with two fouls each. :rolleyes:;)

[roywhite]

Well, don't be surprised then when you see Okafor and T. Jones start their first ACC game next year with two fouls each. :rolleyes:;)

Well, maybe next year we can get Justise.

[devildeac]

Well, maybe next year we can get Justise.

I'd love to Cook up some of that;):o.

[AtlDuke72]

The aim of our complain is that we want fairness in NCAA for Parker and our team. Losing to uva already happened, nothing gonna change the result.

Nobody knows how ncaa refs response in the big dance. At least K sent the message.

I for one have just heard about all I can stand about the refs. Every college game ends with an ad nauseum discussion about calls and referee conspiracies etc. etc. Duke lost most of its games the same way, namely failing to stop teams down the stretch. Clemson scored something like 8 straight times down the floor in the semi final game. UVA scored points in something like 16 out of 18 trips. Even Wake killed us down the stretch (as did Notre Dame and Clemson the first time) Maybe the discussion should be about trying to do something different on defense occasionally. We could not do worse playing a zone part of the time than we are doing now.

[brickey]

I'm tired of people criticizing our team for not executing down the stretch defensively and then criticizing the fans who offer one reasonable explanation for why it happened.

I hate terping about the refs as much as you do, but I'm not blaming our players in this one. I'm also not happy that we keep talking about fouls not called at UVA's defensive end. Yes, there were lots of hand checks on drives and bumps down low not called, but that's par for the course on both sides every game.

But what's not typical -- there were tons of fouls being committed on the other end that the refs simply chose to let go. (Kudos to UVA for recognizing this and taking advantage of it.)

No one has mentioned the screen on two defenders that Harris set with arms spread wide around the 1 min mark on the layup that (re)sealed our fate. It was an effective box out, but a good second before the shot was initiated. (I wish I had a video of it, but I'd already shattered my remote at that time, so I couldn't rewind.)

I did capture a few great examples earlier on, though, before frustration got the better of me. Here's one of my favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1w3R79DpT0

I count three fouls, how many does the unbiased rest of the nation count, Wheat? (I know you're still there even though you say you aren't.) Actually, there are four: one on the screen for Brogdon, two on Harris, and then Mitchell holds Dre just as the video ends (after Harris almost injured him while throwing Dre into his knees).

Here's another good one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9xp_IUs2d0

I can't believe Rodney got through that. No wonder we were late on so many plays--when defensive fouls are most apt to occur--and seemed tired near the end.

If you thought that two-man moving screen or the one from the first video was egregious, check out this one in what other posters have rightly called the turning point of the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiYIrs6l7FQ

Mitchell doesn't just lean into Dre, he moves Dre at least two shoulder widths toward the baseline --coincidentally right towards one official-- without drawing a call. (Is it just me, or is an official staring right at every one of these infractions in these videos?)

Good on K for pointing out the double standard. All of Basketball Nation would still be screaming bloody murder about plays like this and the fact that Duke shot 300% more free throws than UVA if the shoe had been on the other foot. Actually, worse than that, they'd be saying that Duke's history of ACCT success is entirely due to favoritism from guys like Lukie. Actually, IC would undoubtedly attribute it to Hess, or possibly to Rhodes. (Funny how these are the very refs I dread.)

I'm not among the group that thinks the refs cost us this game. And by no means do I think the refs intentionally called the game in favor of UVA. But I do think they reduced our chance at winning by not calling any offensive infractions all game. All said, though, UVA won this championship -- they're a smart, talented, and disciplined team that out-executed our guys while using all of the playing conditions to their better advantage.

[Kjeffrey]

TH was no worse than many other players who occasionally travel, especially after the contact he often received.

Coach knight might have used this play a teachable moment as well....


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFDIkJKDXM


Grantland doesn't seem to agree with you - see pivot foot. IMO they call like they see it.


http://grantland.com/features/shane-ryan-college-basketball-grantland-dictionary/

[sagegrouse]

The relevant question is whether K's strong statements about the game will lead to more attention to contact and bumps against Duke players. It's worth a shot -- our players need protection too.

And don't look for Jamie Luckie to be assigned to any Duke games real soon.

[DukeandMdFan]

I was surpised that Coach K didn't understand that coaches are not allow to throw objects and complained about it in the press conference.

Fans can't throw objects; players can't throw objects; officials can't throw objects; and coaches can't throw objects.

I'm a relatively new basketball official (two years, mostly jv games). Calling a technical for throwing a marker is an easy call. I have had many conversations with HS and college referees about what behavior to tolerate from coaches. A technical for throwing a marker is an easy call. (Boeheim's technicals were also easy calls.)

I'm sure the officiating crew discussed the technical foul with their supervisor/assignor immediately following the game. They would have also had to discuss the incident if they hadn't called a technical foul.

Throwing a marker is clearly disrespectful. If my boss sees me throw a marker because I don't get what I want, he should address the issue. If I see my child throw a marker because he/she doesn't get what he/she wants, I should address it. And, if an official sees a coach throw a marker because he doesn't get what he/she wants, the official should address it.

Pulling the safety card, what if Coach K threw the marker and it accidentally hit Boozer's Mom in the head?:D

Just like many other game that Duke has won or lost, the outcome of the game may have been different if officials had made different calls. Similarly, the outcome may have changed if Andre Dawkins played more than 7 minutes, the team rebounded better, the defense forced more turnovers, etc.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I don't get the marker fixation. He threw it after the technical was called.

So, the question remains, why was the technical called?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I don't get the marker fixation. He threw it after the technical was called.

So, the question remains, why was the technical called?
Uh, I guess I'm an idiot. I finally went back and watched the whole scenario and realized I had seen the replay of him throwing it. I thought he threw in reaction to the T. Anyway, still completely ridiculous especially after that crappy foul call.

[sporthenry]

I was surpised that Coach K didn't understand that coaches are not allow to throw objects and complained about it in the press conference.

Fans can't throw objects; players can't throw objects; officials can't throw objects; and coaches can't throw objects.

I'm a relatively new basketball official (two years, mostly jv games). Calling a technical for throwing a marker is an easy call. I have had many conversations with HS and college referees about what behavior to tolerate from coaches. A technical for throwing a marker is an easy call. (Boeheim's technicals were also easy calls.)

Well as K said, people have thrown clipboards before and not received technicals. Not sure how this is an easy call as you pretty much have to understand intent. And if you are really going to consider this disrespectful, then that opens up a huge can of worms. How about Roy sitting on the floor a few games ago? Disrespectful, T him up. How about when coaches throw their jackets off? Disrespectful, T them up.

Sorry it just isn't a JV game and the rules are interpreted differently. The amount of vulgarity that comes out of college coaches mouths (K is one of the worst) would probably make a JV official blush. But if you gave him a T for that, as he has gotten many, I doubt he would have said much. But this was ridiculous. Many refs are applauded for letting the coaches blow off some steam, especially in light of bad calls. K was retreating back to his bench at this point and the ref was across the court. If the ref won't even acknowledge you or have a conversation with you but is paying close enough attention to you to see a marker toss, that indicates to me that the ref was looking to instigate something.

[ice-9]

I was surpised that Coach K didn't understand that coaches are not allow to throw objects and complained about it in the press conference.

Fans can't throw objects; players can't throw objects; officials can't throw objects; and coaches can't throw objects.

I'm a relatively new basketball official (two years, mostly jv games). Calling a technical for throwing a marker is an easy call. I have had many conversations with HS and college referees about what behavior to tolerate from coaches. A technical for throwing a marker is an easy call. (Boeheim's technicals were also easy calls.)

I'm sure the officiating crew discussed the technical foul with their supervisor/assignor immediately following the game. They would have also had to discuss the incident if they hadn't called a technical foul.

Throwing a marker is clearly disrespectful. If my boss sees me throw a marker because I don't get what I want, he should address the issue. If I see my child throw a marker because he/she doesn't get what he/she wants, I should address it. And, if an official sees a coach throw a marker because he doesn't get what he/she wants, the official should address it.

Pulling the safety card, what if Coach K threw the marker and it accidentally hit Boozer's Mom in the head?:D

Just like many other game that Duke has won or lost, the outcome of the game may have been different if officials had made different calls. Similarly, the outcome may have changed if Andre Dawkins played more than 7 minutes, the team rebounded better, the defense forced more turnovers, etc.


Coach K was careful to point out that he did not throw the marker "in reaction" to a person or a call. I think this is the crucial difference.

If the ref had made a call he didn't like, they had a conversation, and THEN K threw the marker...yes, that's a technical.

But that's not what happened.

Coach tried to get Jamie Luckie's attention to discuss something, was ignored, then he talked to another ref, and then moments later, he turned around and threw the marker into the chair. Then Luckie called the technical (and from very far away). Coach K's behavior wasn't in reaction to anything specific; it was general frustration. A coach is allowed to express general frustration -- they're not robots.

[g-money]

If you thought that two-man moving screen or the one from the first video was egregious, check out this one in what other posters have rightly called the turning point of the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiYIrs6l7FQ

Mitchell doesn't just lean into Dre, he moves Dre at least two shoulder widths toward the baseline --coincidentally right towards one official-- without drawing a call. (Is it just me, or is an official staring right at every one of these infractions in these videos?)

Being a fairly big believer in referee homerism and a fan of Zapruder citizen journalism to boot, I took a look at your video clip and concur that that was a completely illegal screen. Mitchell looked like an offensive lineman running the counter trey in that sequence.

[DUKIE V(A)]

TH was no worse than many other players who occasionally travel, especially after the contact he often received.

Coach knight might have used this play a teachable moment as well....


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFDIkJKDXM

TH is a power forward who shoots the ball at an under 43 percent clip for his NBA career. He gets regularly owned on the defensive end. He is already 28.5 years old, and his best years are likely behind him. We all know what the deal is.

[JPtheGame]

I think it is very savvy for K to go public with his thoughts. Phil Jackson used to do this before every playoff series. "We'll be ok as long as they don't let Duncan clear out space in the lane" , " I hope they don't let Nash carry the ball at the top of the key like they do in the regular season." Refs are human and it directs their attention. In this case, they hear that if they call it lopsided against Duke, they will be called out publicly. smart.

As for the UVA game, the narrative was set before the tip. When Duke missed shots, it was UVA's amazing physical D. When UVA went 8+ without a field goal it was because they had "gone cold". I applaud K for commenting on the issue and I hope it does take away from UVA's win because it should. I get tired of hearing how we should respond to something that is unfair. We call it out, K calls it out, good. Wrong is wrong and Im not worried about how it impacts how UVA feels because in a fairly called game, Jabari's second half effort becomes legendary instead of forgotten.

[MarkD83]

I blame/give credit to the old Big East conference. I just finished watching "Requiem for the Big East" and the image they wanted to portray (and did) was that BE basketball was about being tough and intimidating the other team. Here is where I blame the old BE. The intimidation meant pushing the envelope of the foul situation. In other words try everything you can get away with and see if the refs make the calls. Over several decades that has crept into all of college basketball because the old BE found that they were successful with this strategy.

What does that mean today. Phrases like "incidental contact", "good no call", "did not gain an advantage" are all used when describing what a referee calls. These all refer to a subjective call by a referee. So if the calls are subjective then as a coach I will lobby in any way I can to have those subjective calls go my way. If I am a player and get away with a few grabs and pushes early in a game (yet another phrase we hear "see how the refs are calling it") then I will keep trying those things. If the referees give the advantage to the aggressor than it pays to be the aggressor.

This means a team needs to be aggressive early and see what they can get away with. If the referees "let them play" (yet another phrase related to subjective calls) then that team will definitely gain an advantage / "get all of the calls".

As a fan of that team that "gets all the calls" don't try to defend the referees and try to show how the foul situation was equitable. Instead embrace the fact that just like rebounds and assists, "getting all of the calls" is a good thing and shows that your team excelled in figuring out the referees to gain an advantage. This is just as critical as getting more rebounds or shooting better.

[oldnavy]

I really miss when basketball was a flowy sport. Touch fouls? Bring 'em back! Let 'em play? Let 'em move! Hip checks? Push-offs? Arm bars? Moving screens? Should be a foul each and every time.

-jk

Agree, there are fouls that should be called every time. My beef is with the calls that seem almost "automatic" in some games and are not really fouls. A lot of these happen in the lane on shooters who are being guarded by players that never leave the floor and have their arms up vertically. Sometimes on replay you see no contact at all, other times you see a brush, often initiated by the offensive player and a foul is called on the defender.

Another call that is almost automatic is the driving player is "pushing" into a defender who is moving along with the ball handler... contact is being initiated by the ball handler, his progress is not being impeded, yet a foul will be called.... often this actually hurts the offensive player since he has gotten past his man...

For those who think every "foul" should be called, I would ask you to focus on the paint for a possession or two. The amount of contact that goes on there with one player trying to gain position and another trying to prevent that is amazing... yet only in very egregious circumstances is anything ever called. Balance that with a hand check on a player 30 feet from the basket that gets called. Do you want to see each push and shove that happens in the pain called, because I can promise you that there would be a foul or two or three on every possession if they were to call that contact.

I have yet had a discussion with anyone this year that isn't unhappy with how the game have been officiated. This isn't just a Duke grip.

If this continues, and the norm becomes 40-50 fouls called every game, with the disruption that this causes, I for one will probably stop watching games.

A basketball game that has a stoppage of play 40+ times due to fouls, many of which are of no significance is just plain ugly and no fun to watch in my opinion.

It doesn't matter to me if Duke is benefiting from the calls at all, I don't want to see it.

The refs are destroying the flow of games. What used to be an up and down the court flow had become a herky jerky affair, and it isn't pretty.

[gotoguy]

I never troll.

And I am happy to let it rest and move on.



Lol and Dean Smith never smoked

[Reilly]

... The refs are destroying the flow of games. What used to be an up and down the court flow had become a herky jerky affair, and it isn't pretty.

I read somewhere recently that the number of fouls called per game is now back at traditional levels. In other words, it was at X level for years, had dipped to a Y level when refs let too much stuff go, and now is back at X level. Cannot remember where I read it. So, not more fouls than historically ... just more than the recent past which had shown a dip in calling fouls.

To my mind, in the old days, the game was free-flowing (not so many fouls) with free player movement.

Then, we had games where not so many fouls were called, but there was all sorts of pushing and shoving and impeding (Butler 2010).

Now, we have a bit more fouls being called ... but it is temporary ... just to get rid of the pushing and shoving and impeding.

I'm OK with the short-term pain of seemingly more fouls being called for the long-term gain of more free player movement.

Would be neat to see historical total foul calls per game. Found this per team:
http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/personal-fouls-per-game

[oldnavy]

Lol and Dean Smith never smoked

He didn't drink either did he?

The funniest thing I have seen over the years was how UNC fans went from being just "appalled" at Coach K's language since Dean never, NEVER would use profanity... to really not caring since Roy routinely drops the "F" bomb.... sometimes even on TV....

Amazing how sanctimony can turn indifference with a simple coaching change!

This is the perfect example of what I find unbearable in UNC fans.... situational ethics.....

[cspan37421]

Maybe some assistant on the Duke staff should just put together a video package for the supervisor of officials and let Luckie et al be graded on it. [they probably already do that]. Or make a formal complaint.

The PhilJacksonesque Mind Trick notwithstanding, I suspect our energies and limited time would be better spent trying to make ourselves a top 100 team in defense. I cannot imagine going deep in the NCAAs without substantially better defense. Perhaps some of our future NBA players would do well to stick around and improve theirs, as it might extend their useful life in the NBA. As I recall, a certain all-time great outside shooter of ours had to develop his defense to more firmly establish his NBA court time. Offense alone didn't carry him or us when he was here, and I fear it won't carry us as far as we would like this year as we would.

[freshmanjs]

Maybe some assistant on the Duke staff should just put together a video package for the supervisor of officials and let Luckie et al be graded on it. [they probably already do that]. Or make a formal complaint.

The PhilJacksonesque Mind Trick notwithstanding, I suspect our energies and limited time would be better spent trying to make ourselves a top 100 team in defense. I cannot imagine going deep in the NCAAs without substantially better defense. Perhaps some of our future NBA players would do well to stick around and improve theirs, as it might extend their useful life in the NBA. As I recall, a certain all-time great outside shooter of ours had to develop his defense to more firmly establish his NBA court time. Offense alone didn't carry him or us when he was here, and I fear it won't carry us as far as we would like this year as we would.

we had the #3 and #4 kenpom defenses when he was here (and also #18 his senior year).

[FerryFor50]

Pulling the safety card, what if Coach K threw the marker and it accidentally hit Boozer's Mom in the head?:D


He'd be a Maryland fan?

[cspan37421]

we had the #3 and #4 kenpom defenses when he was here (and also #18 his senior year).

Thanks for looking that up. That said, I think that had little to do with JJ, and a lot more to do with Shelden.

[Steven43]

A basketball game that has a stoppage of play 40+ times due to fouls, many of which are of no significance is just plain ugly and no fun to watch in my opinion.

It doesn't matter to me if Duke is benefiting from the calls at all, I don't want to see it.

The refs are destroying the flow of games. What used to be an up and down the court flow had become a herky jerky affair, and it isn't pretty.Agree with oldnavy 100%. The most important thing to me is not whether referee bias benefits Duke or just the opposite. It's about whether this sport will be worth our using valuable free time to watch if this excessive calling of fouls continues.

One more season or two of foulfest basketball and many long-time fans will stop watching all but the biggest games. I am almost at that point already.

[jv001]

Agree with oldnavy 100%. This is the heart of the matter. The most important thing to me is not whether referee bias benefits Duke or just the opposite. It's about whether this sport will be worth our using valuable free time to watch if this excessive calling of fouls continues. If this goes on another season or two many basketball viewers will lose interest and stop watching all but the biggest games. It really is becoming almost unwatchable.

But in the Virginia game, the stoppage in play was not for fouls called on the Cavaliers. GoDuke!

[wsb3]

He didn't drink either did he?

The funniest thing I have seen over the years was how UNC fans went from being just "appalled" at Coach K's language since Dean never, NEVER would use profanity... to really not caring since Roy routinely drops the "F" bomb.... sometimes even on TV....

Amazing how sanctimony can turn indifference with a simple coaching change!

This is the perfect example of what I find unbearable in UNC fans.... situational ethics.....

Heard many times over the years UNC fans say, "Well I just don't like the language Coach K uses."
And of course I often responded but it was okay for Dean to chain smoke.
"Dean smoked?" Astonished look on their face. "I never heard that."

While we are on the subject of technical fouls I once got teed up as head coach of my city league youth team because one of our players clearly tripped another player and was whistled for the foul. My assistant coach said. "Well you have been harping on him to play defense with his feet." I laughed & got teed up. Ref said, "I will not have you laughing at me." My assistant was never allowed to be funny during a game again.

[DBFAN]

Agree with oldnavy 100%. The most important thing to me is not whether referee bias benefits Duke or just the opposite. It's about whether this sport will be worth our using valuable free time to watch if this excessive calling of fouls continues.

One more season or two of foulfest basketball and many long-time fans will stop watching all but the biggest games. I am almost at that point already.

Another thing to think about is recruiting. After so long why is a top recruit going to go to a school where they get their clock rung every time they go to the basket. And worse, where no fouls will be called, giving lesser opponents free reign to be as physical as they want

[oldnavy]

Another thing to think about is recruiting. After so long why is a top recruit going to go to a school where they get their clock rung every time they go to the basket. And worse, where no fouls will be called, giving lesser opponents free reign to be as physical as they want

What??

This isn't about allowing excessive physical play... no one is suggesting that.

[alteran]

I always thought that there could have been a lot more fouls called for hacking Hansbrough than there were.


I'm speechless.

[alteran]

What I find funny is that I heard all the same arguments you guys claim are made about Duke in the media these days from Duke fans all throughout Dean Smith's career about UNC getting all the calls, had an unfair advantage, UNC shot more foul shots, etc...refs were biased...yada, yada, yada.

It wasn't true then and it's not true now. The better the players, and the better the play...the more foul calls seem to go your way. Imagine that?

Refs make mistakes, and there are some games that are called poorly, that has been and always will be part of the game.

I come here because I don't generally see the level of posts here that we see on IC, or Devil's Den for that matter, it's not just some UNC fans out there behaving poorly.

I appreciate strong, well stated opinions, even when I don't agree.

Lately all the crying about the refs just seems to be getting old, and unworthy of this board. But hey, that's just one mans opinion.

I sincerely appreciate your opinion, as absurdly wrong as it is. :D

The complaining after the Virginia game is not typical. The Virginia game was probably one of the worst officiated games in the last ten years. It was absolutely ridiculous. Pretty much by every way of assessing it.

1) You've got an absolutely insane free-throw metric.
2) You've got a phantom technical.
3a) You've got a coach running onto the court in the middle of game action and NOT getting a technical...
3b) ... and THEN getting a time out.
4) You've got a game-ending situation where a guy gets completely crushed but there's no call.

It's legitimate to talk about these things.

I'm tired of people implying that because we're calling a crappily officiated game a crappily officiated game, we begrude UVA their success. I think everyone here has gone to extreme pains to say Virginia played well, and deserved their win.

But Duke deserved to have a well-officiated game.

[alteran]

NO, Wheat - Hanstravel did travel - regularly and with impunity.
Step after step after step.
It was almost laughable - and obvious.

And as Tyler's mother showed us-- Hansboroughs always travel for free!

[Dukehky]

What I find funny is that I heard all the same arguments you guys claim are made about Duke in the media these days from Duke fans all throughout Dean Smith's career about UNC getting all the calls, had an unfair advantage, UNC shot more foul shots, etc...refs were biased...yada, yada, yada.

It wasn't true then and it's not true now. The better the players, and the better the play...the more foul calls seem to go your way. Imagine that?

Refs make mistakes, and there are some games that are called poorly, that has been and always will be part of the game.

I come here because I don't generally see the level of posts here that we see on IC, or Devil's Den for that matter, it's not just some UNC fans out there behaving poorly.

I appreciate strong, well stated opinions, even when I don't agree.

Lately all the crying about the refs just seems to be getting old, and unworthy of this board. But hey, that's just one mans opinion.


So Jabari Parker, who is the best player in the country not named Doug McDermott, and one of the nicest human beings in the world, get's 3 FTs after driving to the basket the entire game. Where does that fit into your little scheme there?

Look the officials didn't take the game away from Duke, they didn't even take away Duke's chance to win the game, but they sure made it a hell of a lot harder for Duke to win that game.

[oldnavy]

I'm speechless.

But are you surprised?

[NashvilleDevil]

Another thing to think about is recruiting. After so long why is a top recruit going to go to a school where they get their clock rung every time they go to the basket. And worse, where no fouls will be called, giving lesser opponents free reign to be as physical as they want

I do not understand this line of reasoning. This will in no way affect recruiting. In fact I think the way Jabari has been unleashed will help recruiting players similar to him.

[superdave]

I'm speechless.

Agreed with alteran here.

If you net out all the ref's missed calls of Hansborough climbing a defenders' back to reach over the top and get a rebound, or Hansborough simply flinging his body into defenders, then he might average 10 minutes a game because of foul trouble. He ruined the ACC for four years. It was ugly basketball, poor officiating because it was a free throw fest for one guy.

I remember a former official writing a guest column for DBR (The Whistleblower?) and saying that if refs had called all those things on Hansborough the first few games, they would have wound up calling it on him all four years and he would have been a marginal player.

[NashvilleDevil]

Agreed with alteran here.

If you net out all the ref's missed calls of Hansborough climbing a defenders' back to reach over the top and get a rebound, or Hansborough simply flinging his body into defenders, then he might average 10 minutes a game because of foul trouble. He ruined the ACC for four years. It was ugly basketball, poor officiating because it was a free throw fest for one guy.

I remember a former official writing a guest column for DBR (The Whistleblower?) and saying that if refs had called all those things on Hansborough the first few games, they would have wound up calling it on him all four years and he would have been a marginal player.

What might have been, instead his name is above JJ's on the ACC scoring list.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Agreed with alteran here.

If you net out all the ref's missed calls of Hansborough climbing a defenders' back to reach over the top and get a rebound, or Hansborough simply flinging his body into defenders, then he might average 10 minutes a game because of foul trouble. He ruined the ACC for four years. It was ugly basketball, poor officiating because it was a free throw fest for one guy.

I remember a former official writing a guest column for DBR (The Whistleblower?) and saying that if refs had called all those things on Hansborough the first few games, they would have wound up calling it on him all four years and he would have been a marginal player.

If you lined up all the phantom fouls Hansborough drew end to end in his four year college career, it would wrap around the earth at it's equator 2.4 times.

Trust me... it's science!

[jv001]

So Jabari Parker, who is the best player in the country not named Doug McDermott, and one of the nicest human beings in the world, get's 3 FTs after driving to the basket the entire game. Where does that fit into your little scheme there?

Look the officials didn't take the game away from Duke, they didn't even take away Duke's chance to win the game, but they sure made it a hell of a lot harder for Duke to win that game.

Haven't you noticed Wheat always comes to this site after a Duke loss. Either giving his Tar Heel expert advice on post play, how to play defense and now telling us Duke fans not to discuss foul calls or should I say lack of foul calls. Carolina fans just can't help themselves. Even the good ones(Wheat) don't like Duke. All I can say, IC has to be a terrible board when Wheat won't go there. GoDuke!

[oldnavy]

Haven't you noticed Wheat always comes to this site after a Duke loss. Either giving his Tar Heel expert advice on post play, how to play defense and now telling us Duke fans not to discuss foul calls or should I say lack of foul calls. Carolina fans just can't help themselves. Even the good ones(Wheat) don't like Duke. All I can say, IC has to be a terrible board when Wheat won't go there. GoDuke!

Have you never been to IC??

It is worth at least one trip in your life.... but don't linger.

[jv001]

Have you never been to IC??

It is worth at least one trip in your life.... but don't linger.

Yes, twice and I didn't linger :cool: GoDuke!

[weezie]

The UNC fan perspective...


crickets............

heh-heh :cool:

[tbyers11]

Have you never been to IC??

It is worth at least one trip in your life.... but don't linger.

Agreed. Make sure you burn your clothes afterward, too. The stench never comes out

[91_92_01_10_15]

I posted this in the other referee thread, and I thought I would put it here, too, in case folks find it interesting.






year
duke fta
opp fta
differential


89-90
1163
794
369


90-91
1089
792
297


91-92
1043
583
460


92-93
838
524
314


93-94
797
560
237


94-95
616
593
23


95-96
633
645
-12


96-97
801
675
126


97-98
960
712
248


98-99
1135
730
405


99-00
833
541
292


00-01
1002
701
301


01-02
906
690
216


02-03
897
711
186


03-04
890
689
201


04-05
821
643
178


05-06
905
612
293


06-07
698
545
153


07-08
852
646
206


08-09
914
647
267


09-10
899
750
149


10-11
826
655
171


11-12
864
657
207


12-13
796
671
125


13-14
770
730
40

[SoCalDukeFan]

Have you never been to IC??

It is worth at least one trip in your life.... but don't linger.

I am now banned for a question. On Selection Sunday 2010 I merely asked if anyone in Chapel Hill was hosting a NIT Selection Show viewing party.


SoCal

[alteran]

I am now banned for a question. On Selection Sunday 2010 I merely asked if anyone in Chapel Hill was hosting a NIT Selection Show viewing party.


SoCal

Yeah, they're pretty quick with the hook there.

[uh_no]

I posted this in the other referee thread, and I thought I would put it here, too, in case folks find it interesting.

first of all, this is great data, and I felt i had to do it justice!

my thesis is and always has been that ref's don't "have it out" for duke, and any foul differences are due to random variation, or due to how a team plays. So how can I attempt to demonstrate that with this data?

First I think we must agree on some point: teams that are significantly better than the competition all year are more likely to draw excessive fouls, and teams that are significantly worse are likely to draw many fewer....therefore I think we should limit our analysis to the "average" duke team....ones that aren't stupid dominant, and stupid bad, as they are unlikely to be relevant in analyzing this years team.

so, i plotted foul difference vs winning% for the range given, and we see a clear trend, for each 1% increase in winning, we see about 6.6 better foul difference over the course of the season, all with a .45 R^2 value, which is pretty good in this case!

but what do we also see, there are a few outliers in the distribution....94-96, our by far two worst seasons had by far the worst foul differences, and our two best seasons had easily the best.

I would argue that neither the 94-96 teams, or the 92 team that lost 2 games or the 99 team that lost 2 games are particularly relavent in the analysis. You could argue that the 07 team should be removed too, but it doesn't greatly affect the results. The remaining teams all had between 4 and 11 losses, and thus enough to represent your "average" pretty good duke team, at least in my opinion.

what do we see now? for every % increase in winning, we only see 3 more fouls, but more significantly, the R^2 value has dropped off the bottom to NEGATIVE 0.05....which is effectively no correlation.

so what can we do now that we have established that there is no correlation between a team's winning percentage and the fouls (aside from extreme outliers)? well if there was a waning duke favoritism among refs, we should be able to see a trend in the foul difference over the years.

you might say "well uh_no, how do you account for the fact that reffing or overall style of play change as time goes on, so foul difference might be expected to change!" and you'd be exactly right, especially this year, where changes in rules can significantly impact how the game is played and called. To do this properly, we'd have to normalize against the foul difference among teams of duke's caliber each year....but i don't have that data, nor the time to compile it :(, but hey, incomplete data never stopped DBR from coming to conclusions before, AmIRite? :P

so lets see what happens just for kicks

Holy frijoles batman!

we see an average of just over 7 FEWER fouls per year for us over the 25 year span!

you know who wasn't expecting to see that? THIS GUY!

So what conclusions can we draw from this? it's possible to go two different ways:

1) face value: refs no longer favor duke as much as the used to. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion given the data we DO have, and if that's your takeaway, I'm not sure any data will convince you

2) hidden variable: I tend to take this position. I think we'd need to normalize this data further. The obvious one is number of possessions....we should be dividing the foul difference by number of possessions over the course of a year to get a saner value. If it is, as I imagine, that possessions HAVE gone down over the 25 years (and i think kenpom has data to support this) then we should expect to see a proportional decrease in fouls per year. Further, we should also normalize against style of play....and we would do that by, for each year, isolating teams with similar winning percentages, tempi, and 3pt/2pt ratios to try to eliminate the confounding variable of changes in reffing. again I don't have this data, but wish i did.

So what do I take away? dukes foul advantage seems to be going down over the years, but it is impossible to know whether this is because of refs turning against duke, or some other confounding variable.

have at it

[devildeac]

Have you never been to IC??

It is worth at least one trip in your life.... but don't linger.

And take disinfectant:o:rolleyes:.

[devildeac]

I posted this in the other referee thread, and I thought I would put it here, too, in case folks find it interesting.

I'd be curious to see what those numbers were for the flagship state university folks who reside down the road who think we get all the calls. Somehow, my aging memory recalls that even during their 8-20 year there was a large disparity in FT between unc and their opponents.

[ncexnyc]

One point that Coach K made, which hasn't been discussed on this thread is the way Duke doesn't get the local media protection like UNC does. A classic example of this would be the monkey business that has been going on at CH and how the only media to cover it was the N&O. No radio, no TV, none of the other local papers. It was only when this went national that some of the others finally ran with the story and even then it had a definite UNC slant.

[FerryFor50]

first of all, this is great data, and I felt i had to do it justice!

my thesis is and always has been that ref's don't "have it out" for duke, and any foul differences are due to random variation, or due to how a team plays. So how can I attempt to demonstrate that with this data?

First I think we must agree on some point: teams that are significantly better than the competition all year are more likely to draw excessive fouls, and teams that are significantly worse are likely to draw many fewer....therefore I think we should limit our analysis to the "average" duke team....ones that aren't stupid dominant, and stupid bad, as they are unlikely to be relevant in analyzing this years team.

so, i plotted foul difference vs winning% for the range given, and we see a clear trend, for each 1% increase in winning, we see about 6.6 better foul difference over the course of the season, all with a .45 R^2 value, which is pretty good in this case!

but what do we also see, there are a few outliers in the distribution....94-96, our by far two worst seasons had by far the worst foul differences, and our two best seasons had easily the best.

I would argue that neither the 94-96 teams, or the 92 team that lost 2 games or the 99 team that lost 2 games are particularly relavent in the analysis. You could argue that the 07 team should be removed too, but it doesn't greatly affect the results. The remaining teams all had between 4 and 11 losses, and thus enough to represent your "average" pretty good duke team, at least in my opinion.

what do we see now? for every % increase in winning, we only see 3 more fouls, but more significantly, the R^2 value has dropped off the bottom to NEGATIVE 0.05....which is effectively no correlation.

so what can we do now that we have established that there is no correlation between a team's winning percentage and the fouls (aside from extreme outliers)? well if there was a waning duke favoritism among refs, we should be able to see a trend in the foul difference over the years.

you might say "well uh_no, how do you account for the fact that reffing or overall style of play change as time goes on, so foul difference might be expected to change!" and you'd be exactly right, especially this year, where changes in rules can significantly impact how the game is played and called. To do this properly, we'd have to normalize against the foul difference among teams of duke's caliber each year....but i don't have that data, nor the time to compile it :(, but hey, incomplete data never stopped DBR from coming to conclusions before, AmIRite? :P

so lets see what happens just for kicks

Holy frijoles batman!

we see an average of just over 7 FEWER fouls per year for us over the 25 year span!

you know who wasn't expecting to see that? THIS GUY!

So what conclusions can we draw from this? it's possible to go two different ways:

1) face value: refs no longer favor duke as much as the used to. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion given the data we DO have, and if that's your takeaway, I'm not sure any data will convince you

2) hidden variable: I tend to take this position. I think we'd need to normalize this data further. The obvious one is number of possessions....we should be dividing the foul difference by number of possessions over the course of a year to get a saner value. If it is, as I imagine, that possessions HAVE gone down over the 25 years (and i think kenpom has data to support this) then we should expect to see a proportional decrease in fouls per year. Further, we should also normalize against style of play....and we would do that by, for each year, isolating teams with similar winning percentages, tempi, and 3pt/2pt ratios to try to eliminate the confounding variable of changes in reffing. again I don't have this data, but wish i did.

So what do I take away? dukes foul advantage seems to be going down over the years, but it is impossible to know whether this is because of refs turning against duke, or some other confounding variable.

have at it

One problem - the idea of the winning:foul correlation is, in itself, flawed.

Why?

Because foul differential directly affects winning!

So it is impossible to say from raw numbers that a team does or not get more calls than another team. However, it's reasonable to say that a 4:1 free throw difference in a season that is a complete outlier is a bit... odd.

The only way to really evaluate is to watch every game with an official and dissect every second of the game. Which is pretty much impossible.

What we all saw in the ACC final was Duke driving, players falling or seemingly getting hit on missed or made shots. Naturally we wonder what constitutes a foul in those cases.

Had the FT differential been more normalized, I think most of us would have taken the usual dbr party line of, "refs didn't cost is the game."

I don't think most reasonable fans are on the ref bias bandwagon. I think most of us wonder how such a physical man to man defense got whistled for so few fouls. And I think that's a fair question to ask.

Some games you can blame reliance on the three or mid range jumpers. But not this time.

[91_92_01_10_15]

Thanks to uh_no for the detailed analysis of the data I posted earlier. I have nothing so detailed, but I did project out the number of FTA for Duke and our opponents by multiplying the average # of attempts per game thus far in the season by the three remaining games that our #3 seed would project that we would play.

The results are that Duke is expected to shoot 838 FT this year, good for 15th most in the last 25 years.
Our opponents are expected to shoot 795 FT, the most in the last 25 years.

One might have expected that FT numbers would be at record highs this year because of the rule changes, which makes it interesting that Duke actually had a below-average year for free throws, with said average being 882.4 for the 24 years prior.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Thanks for all the data and discussion. As I hoped, this conversation has moved past the frustrations we all felt on Sunday.

I like the simplicity of the table of fouls called and it does bring up interesting follow up questions. Clearly there is some truth to the fact that an over-matched team is likely to foul more. When you have Jason Williams and Shane Battier on the floor, or JJ Reddick, your opponent fouls out of desperation.

Additionally, a team that shoots more free throws has a greater chance of winning, obviously.

To me, the question of whether complaining about calls is warranted boils down to one question... is there a demonstrated bias against or for a particular team or player through a game or a season? This is much more difficult to prove through numbers, because while we all know a "bad call" when we see one, you can't easily quantify it on paper.

Tyler gets lots of fouls for his minutes played, but we all accept that it is part of his aggressiveness and how he plays. MP3 is called for lots of fouls because he is out of position.

The only chart that would prove to me a bias would be a pattern of egregious "bad calls" against a team and evaluated by a third party.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion. Fills the quiet days this week rather nicely.