Gonzaga goes down!!!!!

[duketaylor]

St. Mary's takes them out!!!!
Three #1 seeds for ACC much, much stronger!!! Duke needs to win the tourney (ACC), send unc out west (or leave Zags as #1 out there), UVA south, UK midwest, Duke east.

[dukelifer]

St. Mary's takes them out!!!!
Three #1 seeds for ACC much, much stronger!!! Duke needs to win the tourney (ACC), send unc out west (or leave Zags as #1 out there), UVA south, UK midwest, Duke east.

You never know. Zags crushed them earlier in the year.

[robed deity]

You never know. Zags crushed them earlier in the year.

Just your normal 61 point swing...

[DukeBlue666s]

Does this still mean Gonzaga is a lock for a #1??

[westwall]

Does this still mean Gonzaga is a lock for a #1??

May depend on their SOS.

[uh_no]

Does this still mean Gonzaga is a lock for a #1??

one loss will barely move the needle in the NET rankings. I say yes.

[Acymetric]

one loss will barely move the needle in the NET rankings. I say yes.

Agreed...they won't be #1 overall but they'll almost certainly be a 1.

[UrinalCake]

They didn’t just lose, they got absolutely demolished. I wouldn’t suppose they are still a lock for a #1.

[JasonEvans]

Whether they are #1 in the West with the ACC's 3rd team or the SEC champ or if they are #2 in the West with the ACC's 3rd team or the SEC champ makes fairly little difference at all. My bet is that they keep the #1, but it is not a sure thing.

[Dukehk]

They likely keep their #1 seed but they definitely shouldn't be overall 1 seed.

Their SOS is really weak due to their cupcake conference. Not their fault, but the facts are the facts. Any loss to their conference teams should be a major blow to them.

They obviously beat us in their one and only signature win..but it doesn't look good when you lose to the only other two ranked teams you played all year long.

If i had a choice I would say the ACC should get 3 number 1 seeds but send unx out west with zags as their 2 seed?

Nonetheless, the zags do pass the "eye test" and are an elite team. Im thinking the committee keeps them as #1 out west but puts a tough team in their bracket i.e. kentucky/unx

Of course, alot will also depend on how the other conference tournaments go. We are assuming that Duke wins the ACC tourney and one of ky/tennesee win the SEC

[-jk]

+34.73 to +32.89 in KenPom.

About what the wake game did to us...

-jk

[robed deity]

This game also featured one of the worst charge calls I've ever seen. The St Mary's player drew a charge with his back on a breakaway. I have no idea what the ref was looking at. Really bizarre.

[ndkjr70]

You don’t pay much attention if you still say Gonzaga is a “lock” for a 1-seed. They’re 4-3 against Q1 teams. Duke, UVA, UK, UT, UNC, and MSU all have significantly better resumés.

A non-conference champion from the freaking WCC does not deserve a 1-seed unless they won every other game by fifty. Period.

[gam7]

Gonzaga's 47 points is their lowest point total in a game since ................. December 19, 2009: Duke 76, Gonzaga 41

Man, I remember that epic beatdown. I think that game was the second time that season when I thought: "Ya know, this 2010 team might actually do something."

(The first time I had that thought was after the "alarmingly unathletic" game, which was less than a month before that Gonzaga game.)

[Kedsy]

And another bubble team loses its wings...

[weezie]

This game also featured one of the worst charge calls I've ever seen. The St Mary's player drew a charge with his back on a breakaway. I have no idea what the ref was looking at. Really bizarre.

Agreed. I nearly lost a lung screaming when Duke picked up a foul during the vtech game when the hokie purposely backed into, I think, Tre.

[Acymetric]

This game also featured one of the worst charge calls I've ever seen. The St Mary's player drew a charge with his back on a breakaway. I have no idea what the ref was looking at. Really bizarre.

I thought that was called clipping. Wait, wrong sport.

I would need to see video...I can certainly imagine on offensive player committing an offensive foul against a defender who had their back to the offensive player, but I don't know how this example played out to say if it was a reasonable call or not.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Agreed...they won't be #1 overall but they'll almost certainly be a 1.

Very much agree with this. It doesn't really matter though; Gonzaga - top 1 seed or not - is still going West. That helps everyone else out.

[robed deity]

I thought that was called clipping. Wait, wrong sport.

I would need to see video...I can certainly imagine on offensive player committing an offensive foul against a defender who had their back to the offensive player, but I don't know how this example played out to say if it was a reasonable call or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinReed99/status/1105640125554257920

Here it is. I just have never seen that called an offensive foul.

[uh_no]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinReed99/status/1105640125554257920

Here it is. I just have never seen that called an offensive foul.

at no time was the defender in any sort of legal guarding position.

[bigperm13]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinReed99/status/1105640125554257920

Here it is. I just have never seen that called an offensive foul.

Because it wasn't. That was 100% a foul on St. Mary's. You used to have to beat the offensive player to the spot and be in good position to pick up a charge. Now, it seems you just have to be checked into the game and on the court (and make sure your feet are out of the circle if it's during a time they can review it).

[MChambers]

at no time was the defender in any sort of legal guarding position.

It's like that part of the rule is being ignored a lot this year.

[PackMan97]

Because it wasn't. That was 100% a foul on St. Mary's. You used to have to beat the offensive player to the spot and be in good position to pick up a charge. Now, it seems you just have to be checked into the game and on the court (and make sure your feet are out of the circle if it's during a time they can review it).

It was likely called because it looked like the player shoved the kid out of the way, Still a bad call.

What amazes me is all the charges we see where the defender goes to floor like they are knocked out despite minimal contact...this kid gets run over and doesn't fall down. Something doesn't add up ;)

[HereBeforeCoachK]

It was likely called because it looked like the player shoved the kid out of the way, Still a bad call.

What amazes me is all the charges we see where the defender goes to floor like they are knocked out despite minimal contact...this kid gets run over and doesn't fall down. Something doesn't add up ;)

Let me tell you my theory of officiating.....one that needs to catch on:

There is no way to know what is really going on in these situations unless you play the game some yourself. I think these ref clinics should mandate that the refs play 5 on 5 and have other refs officiate.....to know what it's like. It would revolutionize the block charge officiating, because there are two major mistakes officials make routinely:
A: they don't understand that a defender can be moving and the foul still be on the offensive player (ala James Harden).
B: on the other extreme, they fall for the flop.

If they played just a little pick up at these summer clinics they go to, and get those calls fked up - on THEM as players - they'd be FAR superior officials. I would be my Merrill portfolio on it.

[Ian]

I don't know, to me it looked like a good call. The defensive player was not in defensive position, but he obviously didn't initiate the contact with his back to the offensive player, and the offensive player ran him over.

[uh_no]

I don't know, to me it looked like a good call. The defensive player was not in defensive position, but he obviously didn't initiate the contact with his back to the offensive player, and the offensive player ran him over.

In order that we making uninformed guesses, the rulebook only cares about initiating contact in exactly two scenarios:

1)

When a player in control of the ball stops continuous movement toward
the basket and then initiates illegal contact with a secondary defender in the
restricted area, this is a player control foul.
2)

Officials should not reward offensive players when they create contact with a
defensive player who is legally moving to maintain a guarding position.

1 obviously doesn't apply, 2 doesn't apply since the defensive player had to have previously established legal guarding position in order to maintain it, which he obviously never did given the rulebook explicitly states WRT legal guarding position:

The guard’s torso shall face the opponent.

There was no legal guarding position, there never was a legal guarding position, who initiated the contact is irrelevant.

[plimnko]

This game also featured one of the worst charge calls I've ever seen. The St Mary's player drew a charge with his back on a breakaway. I have no idea what the ref was looking at. Really bizarre.

does ted valentine have a brother?

[brlftz]

I don't know, to me it looked like a good call. The defensive player was not in defensive position, but he obviously didn't initiate the contact with his back to the offensive player, and the offensive player ran him over.

I agree with you completely. The offensive player suddenly changed direction and plowed into a player who was not seeking contact but just kind of back pedaling. Yeah, he wasn't in guarding position because he wasn't trying to guard. He was just back pedaling and covering a passing lane. Looked like an obvious charge to me.

[JasonEvans]

That is one of the worst charging calls I have ever seen... wow. Are we sure that wasn't RJ Barrett with the ball?

[El_Diablo]

In order that we making uninformed guesses, the rulebook only cares about initiating contact in exactly two scenarios:

1)

2)


1 obviously doesn't apply, 2 doesn't apply since the defensive player had to have previously established legal guarding position in order to maintain it, which he obviously never did given the rulebook explicitly states WRT legal guarding position:


There was no legal guarding position, there never was a legal guarding position, who initiated the contact is irrelevant.

That's an oversimplification that overlooks various foul scenarios that could be called on an offensive player (e.g., pushing, elbowing, hooking, etc.). The second one isn't even a rule; it's part of the preface discussing special areas of concern.

[uh_no]

That's an oversimplification that overlooks various foul scenarios that could be called on an offensive player (e.g., pushing, elbowing, hooking, etc.). The second one isn't even a rule; it's part of the preface discussing special areas of concern.

Fair enough, even more a reason to disregard the "initiating contact" argument.

If you'd like to counter with actual rules in the rulebook that support your position, please feel free....

[ChillinDuke]

It probably should have been a block. But I admit I'm a little surprised at the level of vehement pushback people are giving to the charge call. The guy (to me) seemed like he was trying to guard - to the extent an overmatched defender can hope to guard a breaking player in almost full stride. The offensive player made a legit, but violent, cut to the basket. As such, it probably should have been a block. That said, the angle in the Twitter video isn't great and is real-time (fast), so if the offensive player made that violent cut and had an arm extended, would I be shocked and appalled at a charge call? Probably not. It's a tough call, but an extended arm would take care of it for me.

Before watching the video, I expected to see a fast break at halfcourt where the defender was literally turned to the breaking player and running back to try to beat him to the rim. This was much more nuanced and, while probably still a block, is not completely insane to me. I'm a little surprised everyone is up in arms over it.

- Chillin

ETA: This brings up a great point on refereeing this season. I feel like the block/charge clarity that has been afforded refs by the arc under the basket (many more block calls now in close-to-the-basket situations) has made refs substitute their charge calls to driving players. I don't think it's right. We've seen it a lot in our games this year (Cam and RJ, mainly). This Gonzaga charge strikes me as a more extreme version of the ones we've seen in our games. It's almost like refs feel like there's a quota of charge calls every game, and they can't call them under the basket anymore, so they call them on drives from outside. I disagree with many of them.

[robed deity]

It probably should have been a block. But I admit I'm a little surprised at the level of vehement pushback people are giving to the charge call. The guy (to me) seemed like he was trying to guard - to the extent an overmatched defender can hope to guard a breaking player in almost full stride. The offensive player made a legit, but violent, cut to the basket. As such, it probably should have been a block. That said, the angle in the Twitter video isn't great and is real-time (fast), so if the offensive player made that violent cut and had an arm extended, would I be shocked and appalled at a charge call? Probably not. It's a tough call, but an extended arm would take care of it for me.

Before watching the video, I expected to see a fast break at halfcourt where the defender was literally turned to the breaking player and running back to try to beat him to the rim. This was much more nuanced and, while probably still a block, is not completely insane to me. I'm a little surprised everyone is up in arms over it.

- Chillin

Haha I think I'm just still annoyed about the Barrett calls, and feel officials call too many offensive fouls in general.

[BD80]

In order that we making uninformed guesses, the rulebook only cares about initiating contact in exactly two scenarios:

1)

2)


1 obviously doesn't apply, 2 doesn't apply since the defensive player had to have previously established legal guarding position in order to maintain it, which he obviously never did given the rulebook explicitly states WRT legal guarding position:


There was no legal guarding position, there never was a legal guarding position, who initiated the contact is irrelevant.

Does it matter if the defender being charged into is defending the ballhandler? What if he is in legal guarding with respect to a different opponent?

[Neals384]

St Mary's win is not good news for bubble teams as this give the WCC two tickets to the dance, not just one.

[rsvman]

St Mary's win is not good news for bubble teams as this give the WCC two tickets to the dance, not just one.

Precisely. Gonzaga likely doesn't get hurt by it too badly, and St. Mary's makes the tournament. It's a win-win for the conference.

[FerryFor50]

I agree with you completely. The offensive player suddenly changed direction and plowed into a player who was not seeking contact but just kind of back pedaling. Yeah, he wasn't in guarding position because he wasn't trying to guard. He was just back pedaling and covering a passing lane. Looked like an obvious charge to me.

Eh, to my eye, it looked like the defender threw his body back a bit and hip checked the offensive player. He made a weird and unnatural turn away from the play. Should have been a blocking foul.

[jv001]

Eh, to my eye, it looked like the defender threw his body back a bit and hip checked the offensive player. He made a weird and unnatural turn away from the play. Should have been a blocking foul.

Funny how different people can see a play where a foul is called/or not and those people see it differently. I guess we need to consider that when an official blows his whistle. We get the luxury of seeing said play in slow motion from several angles. The guys in the stripes don't get to see it that way. Sure they can go to the monitors and take a look, but that's only on certain type plays. I don't like to blame a loss on the refs but sad to say, I have in the past. All this being said, I still think TV Teddy stinks as an official. :cool: GoDuke!