PDA

View Full Version : End of game: Georgetown vs. Villanova



houstondukie
02-11-2008, 09:56 PM
If you didn't see it, probably one of the worst calls to end a game.

Duvall
02-11-2008, 09:57 PM
If you didn't see it, probably one of the worst calls to end a game.

Probably one of the two worst calls tonight. Then again, the Texas-Kansas game isn't over yet.

YmoBeThere
02-11-2008, 09:58 PM
The women's game between Rutgers and Tennessee had a very bad ending also. The clock paused at 0.2 seconds. How does a clock pause? Someone turns it off...when they shouldn't have.

And yes, the G-town-Nova ending shouldn't have ended that way. Maybe something wrong with the Big East/SEC refs? (Not sure who worked the women's game.)

Schleimer24
02-11-2008, 10:17 PM
If either one of those calls happened in a Duke game (a la Clemson last year or the BC game where Shelden blocked one of the BC players 2 years ago at their place) this would set off a firestorm of articles and ESPN "talking heads" wondering if there was a conspiracy theory with Duke.

The same can be said of the UNC-Clemson game last night where Hansbrough shot nearly 3x as many FTs as the entire Clemson team. Hansbrough is a player that draws contact and plays a physical game but someone that just looked at the box score of a Duke game with a similar stat line would break out the same tired argument.

BlueintheFace
02-11-2008, 10:34 PM
This is the SECOND TIME this year Georgetown has stolen a game via referees... see Ewing Jr. Goaltend

Schleimer24
02-11-2008, 10:38 PM
The Ewing call was fairly arbitrary when compared to the one tonight. It's tough to call a goaltend on that play when it's a bang/bang call. However tonight's was ridiculous (as Jay, Bill and Sean calling the game agreed) that Reynold's was fouled harder than the foul on Wallace. To top it all off, Georgetown was just letting the clock run down as there is no way Wallace was going to take a shot.

pratt '04
02-11-2008, 11:00 PM
However tonight's was ridiculous (as Jay, Bill and Sean calling the game agreed) that Reynold's was fouled harder than the foul on Wallace. To top it all off, Georgetown was just letting the clock run down as there is no way Wallace was going to take a shot.

I think it was absolutely the right call. The ball-handler was bumped out of bounds which gave a clear advantage to the defensive player. If it's a foul in the first half, then the same play is a foul at the end of the game.

I think that Hank Nichols, the NCAA's supervisor of basketball officials, would agree with me. In a recent article by John Feinstein in the Washington Post, Nichols speaks of a similar situation in which no call was made, but should have been:


"You see some people will say, 'Why call a foul 30 feet from the basket?' " he said. "But the kid with the ball [Campbell] got bounced backwards and had to go backwards and reset the entire play. That's an advantage for the defense. You call that foul. When Syracuse played Georgetown a few weeks ago, Syracuse was holding for the last shot, and the same thing happened and my guys no-called it. They should have called it."

HoopsFan
02-11-2008, 11:03 PM
The Ewing call was fairly arbitrary when compared to the one tonight. It's tough to call a goaltend on that play when it's a bang/bang call. However tonight's was ridiculous (as Jay, Bill and Sean calling the game agreed) that Reynold's was fouled harder than the foul on Wallace. To top it all off, Georgetown was just letting the clock run down as there is no way Wallace was going to take a shot.

Agreed, tonight's call was worse given the timing, but on the Ewing play he blatantly traveled first before the shot and subsequent goaltending call. One thing about the call in G'town game tonight, although the announcers said he stayed in bounds I thought he did step on the sideline which would have given the ball back to 'nova.

mapei
02-11-2008, 11:05 PM
I was there, and it was every bit as much a foul as the ones called against the Hoyas in the preceding minutes.

The game as whole had lousy officiating start to finish, with FORTY EIGHT fouls called. It was deplorable, but no more for the end of game call than all the others.

bhd28
02-11-2008, 11:07 PM
That said... what did people think of the end of regulation in the Indiana-Illilois game, where DJ White was trying to throw up a 3/4 court shot and was just grabbed across his arms. No foul called and the game goes to overtime. That was just too much of a whistle swallow in my opinion. No need to bail out a stupid play by the defensive guy, even if it was a 1 in 100 chance of making the shot. Yeah, I know Indiana won anyways, but I would love the opinion of those who saw the play.

Reisen
02-11-2008, 11:08 PM
Just got back from the game. I was sitting center court a few rows back, so had a great view. I was amazed they made that call... In fact, all the Georgetown fans around me were equally amazed, and were chuckling about home cooking and being bailed out. I really hated to win that way.

I said it before several months ago, before Georgetown ever lost, but this is just not a very good basketball team, folks.

dukie8
02-11-2008, 11:08 PM
I think it was absolutely the right call. The ball-handler was bumped out of bounds which gave a clear advantage to the defensive player. If it's a foul in the first half, then the same play is a foul at the end of the game.

I think that Hank Nichols, the NCAA's supervisor of basketball officials, would agree with me. In a recent article by John Feinstein in the Washington Post, Nichols speaks of a similar situation in which no call was made, but should have been:

i don't agree with you -- and that includes nichols. that was one of the worst calls i ever have seen to end a game. the dribbler put his head down and dribbled slightly into the defender. it was more an offensive foul than than a foul on the defender and simply a disgraceful way to end a game. i don't understand why the other 2 refs didn't step in and overrule the call. even better, go to the monitor and look at it. i don't know what the rule is but they could make up a reason (like seeing if there was any time on the clock) and go to the monitor. one of the nfl games had this happen this year against baltimore where the refs went to the monitor even though technically they weren't supposed to (it was a fg that bounced off the crossbar that then went in). they then realized that it was in fact a fg and made the right call. the goal is to get the right call. yes, gtown may have won in ot, but that was a horrendous way to end it. all 3 of the refs should be suspended because games should not ende like that.

DoubleDuke Dad
02-11-2008, 11:12 PM
"You see some people will say, 'Why call a foul 30 feet from the basket?' " he said. "But the kid with the ball [Campbell] got bounced backwards and had to go backwards and reset the entire play. That's an advantage for the defense. You call that foul. When Syracuse played Georgetown a few weeks ago, Syracuse was holding for the last shot, and the same thing happened and my guys no-called it. They should have called it."
Reply With Quote

Pratt '04

Jay Bilas emphatically disagrees with you.

bhd28
02-11-2008, 11:12 PM
i don't think anyone who has any clue about basketball would agree with you -- and that includes nichols. that was one of the worst calls i ever have seen to end a game. the dribbler put his head down and dribbled slightly into the defender. it was more an offensive foul than than a foul on the defender and simply a disgraceful way to end a game. i don't understand why the other 2 refs didn't step in and overrule the call. even better, go to the monitor and look at it. i don't know what the rule is but they could make up a reason (like seeing if there was any time on the clock) and go to the monitor. one of the nfl games had this happen this year against baltimore where the refs went to the monitor even though technically they weren't supposed to (it was a fg that bounced off the crossbar that then went in). they then realized that it was in fact a fg and made the right call. the goal is to get the right call. yes, gtown may have won in ot, but that was a horrendous way to end it. all 3 of the refs should be suspended because games should not ende like that.
Hey dukie8, what did you think of the end of reg. in the Indiana-Illinois game... or did you see it? I thought it sould have been called... but I can understand either view.

pratt '04
02-11-2008, 11:20 PM
i don't think anyone who has any clue about basketball would agree with you -- and that includes nichols. that was one of the worst calls i ever have seen to end a game. the dribbler put his head down and dribbled slightly into the defender. it was more an offensive foul than than a foul on the defender and simply a disgraceful way to end a game. i don't understand why the other 2 refs didn't step in and overrule the call. even better, go to the monitor and look at it. i don't know what the rule is but they could make up a reason (like seeing if there was any time on the clock) and go to the monitor. one of the nfl games had this happen this year against baltimore where the refs went to the monitor even though technically they weren't supposed to (it was a fg that bounced off the crossbar that then went in). they then realized that it was in fact a fg and made the right call. the goal is to get the right call. yes, gtown may have won in ot, but that was a horrendous way to end it. all 3 of the refs should be suspended because games should not ende like that.

I appreciate you implying that I don't have "any clue about basketball."

You completely ignore the fact that the ball-handler was bumped out of bounds. If he doesn't call a foul, then it's a turnover. I don't agree with ignoring the rules just because it's the end of the game. The ball handler stepped out, so it's either a turnover or he was bumped out (and therefore it was a foul).

dukie8
02-11-2008, 11:24 PM
I appreciate you implying that I don't have "any clue about basketball."

You completely ignore the fact that the ball-handler was bumped out of bounds. If he doesn't call a foul, then it's a turnover. I don't agree with ignoring the rules just because it's the end of the game. The ball handler stepped out, so it's either a turnover or he was bumped out (and therefore it was a foul).

what do you expect when you make outlandish claims like the nichols would agree with you? it's not an either or situation -- no foul or a turnover. how about end of regulation with no call? why is it a foul if the ballhandler puts his head down, dribbles into a defender, bounces off the defender after invading his space and then steps out of bounds? that's a new one.

dukie8
02-11-2008, 11:25 PM
Hey dukie8, what did you think of the end of reg. in the Indiana-Illinois game... or did you see it? I thought it sould have been called... but I can understand either view.

i didn't see it. if the guy got hammered, then it should be a foul. the gtown player didn't get hammered and actually initiated the contact himself. big difference.

pratt '04
02-11-2008, 11:27 PM
Pratt '04

Jay Bilas emphatically disagrees with you.

Yeah, I heard Jay saying that the refs should have swallowed their whistles on the play tonight, but he was singing the opposite tune during the broadcast of the Illinois - Indiana game last week (the Indiana player was clearly swiped across the arms during his last second, 3/4 court heave and no call was made). During that game Bilas wondered aloud "how is that not a foul?"

Seems to me that he's contradicting himself by wanting game situation to be factored in by the officials in one case, but not in the other.

dukie8
02-11-2008, 11:27 PM
I said it before several months ago, before Georgetown ever lost, but this is just not a very good basketball team, folks.

you are correct. they would be a nice 2 in our bracket. it's a little late still not to have not beaten a ranked team.

mapei
02-12-2008, 12:01 AM
you are correct. they would be a nice 2 in our bracket. it's a little late still not to have not beaten a ranked team.

Point taken in general, but Notre Dame and Connecticut are both ranked.

I'm a Hoya (as well as Duke) fan and feel they are a legit top-20 team, but not top-10. I'll be a bit surprised if they are as high as a 2 seed when it's bracket time.

Reisen
02-12-2008, 12:43 AM
Point taken in general, but Notre Dame and Connecticut are both ranked.

I'm a Hoya (as well as Duke) fan and feel they are a legit top-20 team, but not top-10. I'll be a bit surprised if they are as high as a 2 seed when it's bracket time.

I'm a Hoya fan as well (graduate student), and love watching the team, but stick by my statement made back when they were undefeated (before the memphis game), that this is not a very good team. That said, they do have passion, and potential, and if they somehow start clicking, they could surprise someone in the tourney. As it stands, though, looking at Georgetown as a 2 seed versus a Kansas, UCLA, Texas, etc., it's a no-brainer. IMO, they're no better than a 4.

TussAgee11
02-12-2008, 02:48 AM
If he doesn't get bumped out of bounds, its a no-call. But he did. So something has to be called, either out of bounds or a foul.

Are you going to give the ball to Nova when they don't deserve it? That isn't right either. Their actions put Georgetown at a disadvantage.

Its a no win situation for the official. The rulebook can't be thrown out at any point in the game, including the last .1 seconds.

What is the Nova player doing chasing him? That seems pretty stupid to me...

Interesting to see what the playcaller will say about this one... but I get the feeling it will be similar to something along the lines of my post.

NashvilleDevil
02-12-2008, 07:29 AM
Just curious what everyone thought about the ending of this game? I thought it should have been a no call. I also thought if it was Duke getting the call that espn would cancel Sportscenter and run an Outside the Lines on how Duke gets all the calls.

DukeDude
02-12-2008, 09:43 AM
Villanova lost to NC State when they fouled Gavin Grant with less than a second left and he got 3 free throws with State down by 1 point. They just aren't a very smart team.

greybeard
02-12-2008, 09:50 AM
This is the SECOND TIME this year Georgetown has stolen a game via referees... see Ewing Jr. Goaltend

Wow, you aren't too careful in your choice of words, are you?

Georgetown played the games; the refs called them.

Georgetown would have beaten the cats in any event; the call just allowed everyone to go home on time. The call, by the way, was a correct one. If it is not the end of the game, it gets called 10 out of 10 times.

On this one, Bilas should swallow his mike. What does he mean, the refs should swallow their whistles at the end? Why? I've said it before, Bilas is on the air way tooo much; he used to have thoughtful things to say. Now he just wings it, yodels. Old guys who tell jokes can yodel. Guys like Bilas do no one a service by talking without thinking. He did in this instance.

feldspar
02-12-2008, 09:58 AM
i don't agree with you -- and that includes nichols. that was one of the worst calls i ever have seen to end a game. the dribbler put his head down and dribbled slightly into the defender. it was more an offensive foul than than a foul on the defender and simply a disgraceful way to end a game. i don't understand why the other 2 refs didn't step in and overrule the call. even better, go to the monitor and look at it. i don't know what the rule is but they could make up a reason (like seeing if there was any time on the clock) and go to the monitor. one of the nfl games had this happen this year against baltimore where the refs went to the monitor even though technically they weren't supposed to (it was a fg that bounced off the crossbar that then went in). they then realized that it was in fact a fg and made the right call. the goal is to get the right call. yes, gtown may have won in ot, but that was a horrendous way to end it. all 3 of the refs should be suspended because games should not ende like that.



Since you so vehemently disagree, I'd be incredibly interested in seeing you counter each of The Playcaller's very well-thought-out points in his latest column.

Lid
02-12-2008, 10:02 AM
I thought the end of the Rutgers-Tennessee women's game was much worse. There, the clock clearly stopped long enough that the foul would have happened after time expired. Really inexcusable. I found it strange that the clock never started again after the free throws, but the officials left the court anyway, with 0.2 sec left on the clock still. Stringer was left to stand around and wonder if the game was really over.

I'm not big on blaming the refs for human errors, but this one, to me, was over the top. They well and truly decided the outcome.

greybeard
02-12-2008, 10:04 AM
I said it before several months ago, before Georgetown ever lost, but this is just not a very good basketball team, folks.

Yeah, but you wouldn't want to play them would you.

They might not be good, but they can beat anybody in the country and surprise no one.

That means that they can go deep in the playoffs. Then, if they find Hibbert and Wallace shoots, you tell me who beats them. (rhetorical, I'm sure you can name several, but I'm equally sure that you could be sure about none).

Look, Georgetown lost the hub of their offense for the past three seasons and did not have a natural replacement for the position (high pivot) in the Princeton. They nevertheless play an entertaining style, defend extremely well, and when they find a way to function smoothly on offense, can hurt anyone.

Finally, while they are inconsistent on the offensive end to date, the season ain't over. Should they catch fire late, you might be eating your words. Just in case, do you like mustard or mayo? ;)

weezie
02-12-2008, 10:04 AM
Playcaller wrote a wonderful, much as I hate to admit it, column. He's going to seriously challenge my deeply held religious beliefs about refs being idiots. I especially loved the "thimble deep" Digger Phelps reference.

sandinmyshoes
02-12-2008, 10:06 AM
Since you so vehemently disagree, I'd be incredibly interested in seeing you counter each of The Playcaller's very well-thought-out points in his latest column.

Since the Playcaller's column has been mentioned: The column is overwritten, tries too hard to be clever. I was looking forward reading it, but was disappointing because the cuteness got in the way of concise points. Don't get me wrong, I like cleverness, but that column laid it on a bit thick.

The style reminded me of the articles Carlos has written, except the little editor on the shoulder that writers are supposed to have had evidently been bound gagged and stuffed in a trunk somewhere.

That said, once I wade through the fluff, there was some good stuff there.

ugadevil
02-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Since you so vehemently disagree, I'd be incredibly interested in seeing you counter each of The Playcaller's very well-thought-out points in his latest column.

Are you the Playcaller?

-jk
02-12-2008, 10:20 AM
They're discussing this game over on the Official Forum (http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=41826).

They seem to think if he'd not been bumped out of bounds, the call wouldn't have been made.

-jk

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-12-2008, 10:25 AM
Playcaller wrote a wonderful, much as I hate to admit it, column. He's going to seriously challenge my deeply held religious beliefs about refs being idiots. I especially loved the "thimble deep" Digger Phelps reference.

I had a different reaction to the column.:(

allenmurray
02-12-2008, 10:27 AM
Since the Playcaller's column has been mentioned: The column is overwritten, tries too hard to be clever. I was looking forward reading it, but was disappointing because the cuteness got in the way of concise points. Don't get me wrong, I like cleverness, but that column laid it on a bit thick.

The style reminded me of the articles Carlos has written, except the little editor on the shoulder that writers are supposed to have had evidently been bound gagged and stuffed in a trunk somewhere.

That said, once I wade through the fluff, there was some good stuff there.

After about the first three sentences I found myself thinking it was overwritten. Then once I got in the flow of the article I completely lost that feeling. I thought it was very well written, gave a concise, sometimes humurous, and technically correct interpretation of the rule. He has a great writing voice and is a great addition to DBR. His commentary on the call at the end of the game is far, far superior to anything on this thread.

BigTedder
02-12-2008, 10:39 AM
The women's game between Rutgers and Tennessee had a very bad ending also. The clock paused at 0.2 seconds. How does a clock pause? Someone turns it off...when they shouldn't have.

And yes, the G-town-Nova ending shouldn't have ended that way. Maybe something wrong with the Big East/SEC refs? (Not sure who worked the women's game.)

yeah, both of those teams got hosed.....its a shame, I'm sure Don Imus was happy though...haha...THATS IT! Don Imus stopped that clock in the Rutgers/Tenn. game yesterday...!

dw0827
02-12-2008, 11:04 AM
My take on this is . . . I saw no blood . . . so no foul.

Let the kids win or lose the game on the court.

I'm not clear about whether the kid actually got bumped and his foot touched the line for a force out . . . but with 0.1 seconds left . . . 0.1 seconds, people . . . . I don't care. Just wave the game into OT.

Don't bother arguing with me about this. My position is indefensible and illogical . . . but its mine and I'm gonna keep it, no matter what.

Swallow the friggin' whistle with 0.1 seconds left 80 feet from the basket.

tbyers11
02-12-2008, 11:17 AM
Since the Playcaller's column has been mentioned: The column is overwritten, tries too hard to be clever. I was looking forward reading it, but was disappointing because the cuteness got in the way of concise points. Don't get me wrong, I like cleverness, but that column laid it on a bit thick.

The style reminded me of the articles Carlos has written, except the little editor on the shoulder that writers are supposed to have had evidently been bound gagged and stuffed in a trunk somewhere.

That said, once I wade through the fluff, there was some good stuff there.

I agree that the column was way too long and tried a bit too hard to be clever making the salient points within about the technical aspects of the call difficult to find. The Play Caller was correct that the bump appeared to cause Wallace to step on the out-of-bounds line. Therefore, since there is no longer a forceout rule in college basketball, the official has to call either a foul or an o.o.b call. This is the correct by the book interpretation.

My point addresses whether that call really needs to be made. I agree with the credo that the best officiated game is one in which you don't even realize that the refs are there. If the referee doesn't blow the whistle time runs out. The game goes to OT and no one says a word about the slight bump that caused Wallace to skirt the sideline b/c there is less than half a second left and Wallace is not going to hit a 70 ft shot. The 2 teams then decide the game in OT.

Refs swallowing their whistles at the end of games happens all the time. In the Illinois-Indiana game last week, Pruitt (Illinois) missed a FT with less than a second left in a tie game. An Indiana player (DJ White, I think) got the rebound and turned to heave a desperation prayer from 75 feet. Pruitt reached in and slapped White hard on the arm just before time expired. It was a much more blatant foul than the Nova-GTown one last night. The refs didn't call anything. The announcers (Bilas and Rece Davis, I think) commented that Indiana player was fouled but then quickly dropped it and the game was decided by the 2 teams in OT.

Should the ref be cognizant of the time remaining on the clock and swallow his whistle realizing that the bump (while technically a foul) had no actual impact on the outcome of the game (Ind-Ill) or should he call the game by the letter of the law (Nova-GTown)? I don't know.

In the Play Caller's first piece yesterday he said "... it will be time to talk plays that aren’t nearly so black-and-white, which is when the fun really starts. This is where judgment must take over, the point (if reached) at which the rulebook has said all it has to say." I would have found his article much more interesting had this been done.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-12-2008, 11:36 AM
Very well-said. I've noticed an (entirely understandable) tendency for officials commenting on the officiating of others to "close ranks" as it were and simply deny the possibility that any mistakes were ever made. If we can agree that fans and commentators are often over-the-top or simply wrong about certain calls I don't understand why we can't also recognize that officials sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes they don't see or misidentify infractions, and sometimes they make errors in judgment. This isn't bias or proof that they are "bad." It's just human nature. Last night the right call was no call. It's a decision that officials make all the time and should have 70' from the basket with 0.1 on the clock. There's no shame in recognizing that the wrong call was made and moving on.

jtelander
02-12-2008, 11:39 AM
I thought the end of the Rutgers-Tennessee women's game was much worse. There, the clock clearly stopped long enough that the foul would have happened after time expired. Really inexcusable. I found it strange that the clock never started again after the free throws, but the officials left the court anyway, with 0.2 sec left on the clock still. Stringer was left to stand around and wonder if the game was really over.

I'm not big on blaming the refs for human errors, but this one, to me, was over the top. They well and truly decided the outcome.

Here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwYcfFvn-uY

mapei
02-12-2008, 11:44 AM
The people who are saying that, if it had been Duke who got the call at the end, everyone would be screaming bloody murder, are exactly right. I don't know why the entire world hates Duke so much, but at this point it is undeniable.

For those who think the refs should have swallowed their whistles, you may be pleased to know that much of the Georgetown board agrees with you and doesn't think the Hoyas deserved to win that way.

What I think is that they should have swallowed their whistles, yes, but not just for that play. I don't think the end of the game should be called any differently than the middle. And in this case the refs were ridiculous, all game. They called 48 fouls. Four players fouled out, and two more had four fouls each. There were 51 free throws.

You know how Villanova was in position to tie the game near the end? Too-quick whistles. They had exactly four - four! - field goals the entire second half, going 0-13 from 3-point range. But they also took 18 FTs and made 16. If you live by ticky-tack calls, it's fair that you die by them, too.

I haven't read the Playcaller's column but will look forward to it.

As for Georgetown as a team, they are not a bad team. in fact, they are pretty good, and deserving of their 10-2 conference record. They are a great defensive team, leading the country in FG % defense. But they are far from a great offensive team. As has been pointed out, their schedule has been weak, although their only losses have been on the road to ranked teams. They aren't a great, NC-contending team IMO. But they are a legit top-20 and, if they were in the ACC I'd like their chances against anybody but Duke and a healthy Carolina. They could certainly lose to a MD or a Clemson, but I don't think those teams are superior overall.

The expectations for the Hoyas got out of whack because of their tremendous end-of-season run last year. But that run was spearheaded by Jeff Green, who has gone to the NBA. Unlike Singler, the Hoyas' freshman stud (Austin Freeman) seems to be hitting a freshman wall. Wallace has been in a shooting slump. But their defense will keep them competitive against anybody. In the tourney, I think they are at least a sweet-16 team, maybe elite-8. That ain't bad.

I'll tell you something else. They are easy to root for because their coach is even-keel and classy, and because they are regular students who are polite, go to class, and hang out with other students on and around campus. Hibbert stayed in school for his senior year because, in his own words, he "loves" being a student. Jonathan Wallace even led the prayers at last Sunday's mass, and he's been admitted to Georgetown law school.

Last night's game was ugly in the extreme, but it's not like the other team deserved to win it. I don't think they even deserved to be close.

Indoor66
02-12-2008, 11:47 AM
Last night's game was ugly in the extreme, but it's not like the other team deserved to win it. I don't think they even deserved to be close.

You know, the amazing thing about life is that we rarely get what we deserve. :rolleyes:

darthur
02-12-2008, 11:57 AM
I think it's interesting how people on this board are STILL clinging to the argument that the refs should swallow their whistle when the rules unequivocally state that something MUST be called if the player stepped out of bounds. And nobody here is suggesting he didn't step out of bounds.

Bluedog
02-12-2008, 12:09 PM
I think it's interesting how people on this board are STILL clinging to the argument that the refs should swallow their whistle when the rules unequivocally state that something MUST be called if the player stepped out of bounds. And nobody here is suggesting he didn't step out of bounds.

I personally don't think it's clear either way. It's definitely not a 100% certainty that he stepped on the line even with a zoomed in spot shot. I'm also not sure that he stayed in bounds. That is another judgment call the ref needs to make, IMO.
See http://youtube.com/watch?v=No5hnQ0JjUA

TampaDuke
02-12-2008, 12:24 PM
I'm torn over the "swallow the whistle" logic mainly because it is too discretionary and varies from official to official and perhaps game to game. I also tend to think it ends up favoring the home team in a majority of games (or at least the crowd favorite).

I can't help but think about Boozer 2002 (even though I recognize the difference between a foul under the basket with one occurring 80 feet away). On one hand its a foul against Boozer that would likely have been called at any other point in the game, on the other hand we are only in that position because the refs did call the foul while JW was shooting (and making) a three.

In the end, I guess what I'd like to see is consistency -- either everyone should call these fouls like you would at any other point in the game, or don't. At least in this contest the foul appeared consistent with how the game was called generally.

bjornolf
02-12-2008, 12:29 PM
I thought that it could have gone either way. I thought it was a kind of ticky tack foul, but it was a foul. Not the "knee to the thigh" that Skip Bayless said it was (his knee was in FRONT and got run into), but definitely a brush. I did think there were more like 0.6 seconds left when the foul occurred rather than 0.1, which I think would allow for a catch and shoot, but that's just quibbling.

The Rutgers-Tenn ending was totally ridiculous. If a foul occurred, it would have been about a second after the horn if the clock hadn't mysteriously stopped. With the refs' ability to review the monitor, there is NO excuse for that call being blown. That call cost Rutgers the game, no question about it.

Classof06
02-12-2008, 12:33 PM
Personally I thought it was an atrocious call and in all honesty, I'm surprised to read so many people making justifications. Referees should never determine the outcome of the game and it looked to me like Wallace put himself in the "sideline" situation he was in. If you want to call o.o.b. and give G'Town the ball at the spot then that's fine but to call a foul in that situation is pathetic. Whether or not he stepped out of bounds is too close to call in real time, just like Patrick Ewing's block/goaltend @WVU a few weeks ago; if you're the ref, it's a judgement call you gotta let go.

I also disagree with the Playcaller in that I'm glad the announcers had the cajones to call the referees out immediately. Too many times you can tell when announcers (like any sane person watching) clearly don't agree with a call yet make some compromising statement like "that was a bit questionable" or something of the sort. I realize there's protocol and we don't tune in to hear what they necessarily think but I actually found it refreshing to hear Bilas, Raftery and McDonough blatantly disagree with it. That was a bad call and I don't think it's inappropriate for the announcers to say so.

Referees are so protected it's ridiculous. You say a word, you get fined yet there's no accountability on their part. The job isn't easy and I never said it was but at some point, there needs to be some kind of accountability. If that accountability means getting reamed by the announcers on TV, I'm all for it. The conference can't fine them.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-12-2008, 12:38 PM
I actually thought about the Boozer non-call as I was reading about this game. I'm glad to recognize the difference between "easy layup" and "70' away", but also don't forget the difference between the Boozer foul where he was essentially wrapped up in a bear hug, and this minor bump with the hips/belly.

A better comparison might be the Battier foul on Heywood in Cameron in '01. Heywood probably wasn't looking to launch a shot 30' from the basket, but Shane bumped him/reached in pretty hard. I hated to see that foul called, but have no complaints. Heywood was in semi-offensive position (i.e. over half court) and took a lot of contact on an attempted steal. Here, Georgetown was dribbling out the clock 70' away and took what even the player called a "nudge."

Even the staunchest defenders of the call recognize that it was unclear. In that situation, with no clear evidence that advantage was gained, that's a bad call.

TussAgee11
02-12-2008, 12:52 PM
There was only 1 totally unbiased person in that whole arena who saw the play. The official. Perfect view.

Lines are lines, rules are rules. It is that officials job to make sure the game is played within the rules outlined by the rulebook.

If he had swallowed his whistle with a player standing out of bounds, .1 on the clock, and let the game go to OT, he would be a CHEAT.

It was a very tough spot, but something had to be called, either way.

I lost some respect for Bilas tonight (my Raftery/Phelps respect has always been gone).

And one last thing, that referee didn't decide the game. The players did. The ref just acted in accordance with the rules.

DoubleDuke Dad
02-12-2008, 12:58 PM
The playcaller should have been a politician. After reading his column I am still not quite sure what his position is on the play. I “admire” the way he skillfully changed the subject from the referees to the announcers. Yes, the announcers took a position before they had all the facts. However, that was not the issue. The issue was whether the referee should have made that call with 0.1 seconds on the clock or not given the fact that the game was on the line. It is certainly not clear to me that a foul would have necessarily been called on the same play at an earlier point in the game. I have seen many times where a defensive player blocks the baseline and slides into the offensive player forcing him to go out of bounds and no foul is called. I have also seen the referee swallow his whistle at the end of the game and not make an obvious foul call when the clock is running out. For example that happened in the 1989 Georgetown-Princeton game in the NCAA playoffs where no foul was called on Alonzo Morning on the last play of a 50-49 Georgetown victory (hmm maybe there is something to this Georgetown conspiracy thing?:) ).

Dukiedevil
02-12-2008, 01:05 PM
There was only 1 totally unbiased person in that whole arena who saw the play. The official. Perfect view.

Lines are lines, rules are rules. It is that officials job to make sure the game is played within the rules outlined by the rulebook.

If he had swallowed his whistle with a player standing out of bounds, .1 on the clock, and let the game go to OT, he would be a CHEAT.

It was a very tough spot, but something had to be called, either way.

I lost some respect for Bilas tonight (my Raftery/Phelps respect has always been gone).

And one last thing, that referee didn't decide the game. The players did. The ref just acted in accordance with the rules.

I might agree with you if the player had been pushed out of bounds, but I think that is arguable at best. There was no camera angle that suggested that he was pushed out of bounds. Yes there was contact but in my opinion it was incidental (as was the contact immediately before it under the basket) and should not have been called. You insinuate that there is no question that he was pushed out of bounds, but think you will have a hard time finding a camera angle to back it up.

MChambers
02-12-2008, 01:07 PM
The playcaller should have been a politician. After reading his column I am still not quite sure what his position is on the play. I “admire” the way he skillfully changed the subject from the referees to the announcers. Yes, the announcers took a position before they had all the facts. However, that was not the issue. The issue was whether the referee should have made that call with 0.1 seconds on the clock or not given the fact that the game was on the line. It is certainly not clear to me that a foul would have necessarily been called on the same play at an earlier point in the game. I have seen many times where a defensive player blocks the baseline and slides into the offensive player forcing him to go out of bounds and no foul is called. I have also seen the referee swallow his whistle at the end of the game and not make an obvious foul call when the clock is running out. For example that happened in the 1989 Georgetown-Princeton game in the NCAA playoffs where no foul was called on Alonzo Morning on the last play of a 50-49 Georgetown victory (hmm maybe there is something to this Georgetown conspiracy thing?:) ).

In the semifinals, Florida had one last shot to beat Duke, and Tony Lang drew a charge on one of Florida's guards at half court. (As I recall, it was a very smart play, because Duke had only 5 fouls, so that even Lang had been called for a block, it wouldn't have hurt.

I remember the next day in my office my boss said that you don't call a charge in that situation. Personally, I think that the game should be called the same way for the entire 40 minutes.

Dukerati
02-12-2008, 01:16 PM
I enjoyed the playcaller's article but was hoping he would focus more on the call than the announcers. Ok, great, the announcers rushed to bias and were unduly influenced by confirmation bias. But what about the call?

Having seen the replays, I strongly disagree with anyone who says it was DEFINITELY a foul. Both the actual foul call and the out of bounds were questionable at best and could have been let go, especially considering the game context. We often praise referees for their judgement in certain situations (such as a no-call on a charge/block that is unclear) and I do not think it is unfair to have wished them to exercise better judgement in this situation.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Lines are lines, rules are rules. It is that officials job to make sure the game is played within the rules outlined by the rulebook.

So every time Greg uses his off-hand to push a defender away he should be called for a foul? Every time Nolan bodies up on a ballhandler a whistle should blow? Every time Demarcus bumps a cutter or Kyle leans into a screen they should be whistled?

The fact is, contact that could be a foul is ignored on every single play. Officials have always called things subjectively and situationally. Some games are called "tightly" while others are more physical. Contact in the post is called differently than on the perimeter. Heck, our delay game should, by rule, result in a tremendous number of 5-second closely-guarded calls when we stand in the corner and dribble away the clock. As the Playcaller indicated, the rulebook only takes us so far. Just like with judicial opinions, subjective interpretation and judgment play as large a role in decision-making as what is written. If you are arguing for some sort of strict-constructionist style of officiating you are, imo, arguing for a substantial change from the way games are called today.

Classof06
02-12-2008, 01:22 PM
There was only 1 totally unbiased person in that whole arena who saw the play. The official. Perfect view.

Lines are lines, rules are rules. It is that officials job to make sure the game is played within the rules outlined by the rulebook.

If he had swallowed his whistle with a player standing out of bounds, .1 on the clock, and let the game go to OT, he would be a CHEAT.

It was a very tough spot, but something had to be called, either way.

I lost some respect for Bilas tonight (my Raftery/Phelps respect has always been gone).

And one last thing, that referee didn't decide the game. The players did. The ref just acted in accordance with the rules.

I totally disagree. If you're so black-and-white about it, how do you deal with the fact that Scottie Reynolds for Villanova endured more contact on the way to the rim just 5 seconds earlier? Why wasn't anything called? Because with the game in the balance, you let players decide the game. This is why that last foul (and I still don't even think it was) shouldn't have been called. Considering there was 0.1 left on the clock, no player gained a tangible advantage or disadvantage in that situation. According to the rules, a foul is called when one player is put at a disadvantage through the act of another player.

Your opinion is your opinion but to say "something had to be called either way" is simply wrong. I don't want to ruffle feathers but have you ever played organized basketball before? I'm really not trying to an a-shole but if you have, my guess is you probably (didn't say wouldn't) agree with the call that was made.

Any way you slice it, that was a bad call. To say the referees didn't decide that game is actually ludicrous. As someone who watched this game start to finish, I still can't wrap my head around that call. Reasonable people can disagree and it looks like we do.

Devils8780
02-12-2008, 01:25 PM
If you're a Nova player, you have to EXPECT that call to be made. Why take a chance? There are two seconds on the clock. I'm no genius, but I'll take my chances with a 3/4 court heave...

If a ref is expected to use discretion, so should a player. Foul or not, it could've been avoided.

Blame the player.

Lid
02-12-2008, 01:26 PM
I remember the next day in my office my boss said that you don't call a charge in that situation. Personally, I think that the game should be called the same way for the entire 40 minutes.
I couldn't agree more. I think it's both unfair and confusing to have different standards at different times in a game. It's up to the players to play within the rules and the refs to blow the whistle when they don't; it doesn't matter what the game clock (or scoreboard) says.

I'm not sure why this particular play is so controversial. If the ref thought the player was pushed out of bounds, then the ref has to call a foul. If the ref didn't think the player was pushed out, there doesn't have to be a foul called. Am I missing something? Clearly, the ref thought the player was out. The fact that all of these replays haven't definitively proven otherwise leads me to say that it was a reasonable call and within the bounds of a human doing his best job to call the game fairly. Who cares how much time is left?

eta: I believe the issue of whether this call was good or bad is independent of whether a foul should have been called in the immediately-prior scrum. If a ref is thinking, "Geez, we probably missed something there, let me blow my whistle here and tighten it up," then that ref has clear problems.

darthur
02-12-2008, 01:31 PM
Personally I thought it was an atrocious call and in all honesty, I'm surprised to read so many people making justifications. Referees should never determine the outcome of the game and it looked to me like Wallace put himself in the "sideline" situation he was in. If you want to call o.o.b. and give G'Town the ball at the spot then that's fine but to call a foul in that situation is pathetic. Whether or not he stepped out of bounds is too close to call in real time, just like Patrick Ewing's block/goaltend @WVU a few weeks ago; if you're the ref, it's a judgement call you gotta let go.

I also disagree with the Playcaller in that I'm glad the announcers had the cajones to call the referees out immediately. Too many times you can tell when announcers (like any sane person watching) clearly don't agree with a call yet make some compromising statement like "that was a bit questionable" or something of the sort. I realize there's protocol and we don't tune in to hear what they necessarily think but I actually found it refreshing to hear Bilas, Raftery and McDonough blatantly disagree with it. That was a bad call and I don't think it's inappropriate for the announcers to say so.

I think I strongly disagree with literally every single sentence you wrote there. In particular, I cannot imagine a WORSE call than out of bounds. There was absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt, contact that pushed/tripped the Georgetown player. There is no miscarriage of justice worse than rewarding the player who did that. No call? Fine in theory, although if he stepped out of bounds, unequivocally prohibited by the rules. Out of bounds to West Virginia? Absolutely atrocious call.

I also cannot imagine wanting commentators to criticize the refs more. As far as I can tell, they are absolutely terrible in their ref criticism. At best, they are incredibly selective about what they talk about, at worst, they are just flat-out wrong. Any Duke fan should be more than aware of the first problem. I would be ecstatic if somehow commentators were strictly forbidden from ever questioning a call. When "any sane person" disagrees with a call, 95% of the time, "any sane person" doesn't understand the rules of basketball.

TussAgee11
02-12-2008, 01:36 PM
To answer questions that have been asked between this post and my last one.

I have played, coached, and officiated, lived, breathed, been a fan for, organized basketball.

There is a fundamental difference between Nolan handchecking or Singler getting bumped off a screen. Nobody is getting the ball out of bounds. When a player is standing out of bounds, a whistle must be blown. How could it not be? If a player had a bit of his toe on the line while shooting a 3, is it still a 3? Its the same exact concept. Lines are not arbitrary. There is no gray, as there is in the handchecking or bumping off the ball. There, you have the option of a "no call" or a foul. In the play last night, "no call" was not an option.

As for the players not deciding the game, they did. The referee used his judgment in accordance with the rules and enforced the proper penalty for what he judged. It is the player that violated the rules, the player who made the free throws, and everything in the first 39:59 of that game that decided the game.

Lastly, he may not have been "pushed out", but he definately was at minimum, guided out through contact. Players don't just run out of bounds while dribbling. There was a clear disadvantage placed on the G'Town player (even though there are spots where alot more contact would not be a foul because there is no disadvantage). That disadvantage was he was forced to put his foot on the line. HUGE. Not like a bump off the ball or a handcheck. This disadvantage would have given Nova the ball - it can not be ignored.

Hopefully that clears up my position on this one. Keep flaming if you wish, but remember, everybody has a bias other than that man standing on the court wearing the stripes (including myself, which I have attempted to eliminate as much as possible).

Regards,

Tuss

Dukiedevil
02-12-2008, 01:41 PM
To answer questions that have been asked between this post and my last one.

I have played, coached, and officiated, lived, breathed, been a fan for, organized basketball.

There is a fundamental difference between Nolan handchecking or Singler getting bumped off a screen. Nobody is getting the ball out of bounds. When a player is standing out of bounds, a whistle must be blown. How could it not be? If a player had a bit of his toe on the line while shooting a 3, is it still a 3? Its the same exact concept. Lines are not arbitrary. There is no gray, as there is in the handchecking or bumping off the ball. There, you have the option of a "no call" or a foul. In the play last night, "no call" was not an option.

As for the players not deciding the game, they did. The referee used his judgment in accordance with the rules and enforced the proper penalty for what he judged. It is the player that violated the rules, the player who made the free throws, and everything in the first 39:59 of that game that decided the game.

Lastly, he may not have been "pushed out", but he definately was at minimum, guided out through contact. Players don't just run out of bounds while dribbling. There was a clear disadvantage placed on the G'Town player (even though there are spots where alot more contact would not be a foul because there is no disadvantage). That disadvantage was he was forced to put his foot on the line. HUGE. Not like a bump off the ball or a handcheck. This disadvantage would have given Nova the ball - it can not be ignored.

Hopefully that clears up my position on this one. Keep flaming if you wish, but remember, everybody has a bias other than that man standing on the court wearing the stripes (including myself, which I have attempted to eliminate as much as possible).

Regards,

Tuss

Again, the player was never out of bounds. He was bumped near the sidelines, but he never stepped out. Does (or would it, if you still insist he was o.o.b.?) that change your opinion of the call?

allenmurray
02-12-2008, 01:53 PM
Again, the player was never out of bounds. He was bumped near the sidelines, but he never stepped out. Does (or would it, if you still insist he was o.o.b.?) that change your opinion of the call?

Just because a camera didn't catch it doesn't mean he was not out of bounds. Cameras can't catch everyting. The ref was in the perfect position to see the line and the players foot.

Of course if he was never out of bounds the ref would have had some discretion. However, if from his vantage point the ref saw the player go out of bounds he had to make one of two calls. He either calls the player out-of-bounds and awards the ball to the other team or he calls the foul. His only other option is to pretend that he didn't see the player go out of bounds - not something a ref should do - that would be the official deciding the game.

I think the play caller summed it up well in his column: officials have some discretion to pass on certain calls in certain situations, such as the marginal travel in the junior varsity contest, the slight bump on the LeBron dunk, the common rather than intentional foul in the calm blow-out. Lines, on the other hand, are lines. Even a toenail on the three-point arc, if seen, means a two-point try, no exceptions. And the same thing goes for the sidelines, baselines, the free-throw lines, and the division line

RPS
02-12-2008, 02:01 PM
Again, the player was never out of bounds. He was bumped near the sidelines, but he never stepped out. Does (or would it, if you still insist he was o.o.b.?) that change your opinion of the call?The replay is, in my view, inconclusive. If the player was OOB, a call must be made, one way or the other. If the player was not OOB, no call need be made and, in my opinion, no call should have been made.

P.S. I enjoyed the Play Caller's article. It was interesting and insightful. Besides, any ref who can cite N.N. Taleb has my admiration.

Dukiedevil
02-12-2008, 03:10 PM
Just because a camera didn't catch it doesn't mean he was not out of bounds. Cameras can't catch everyting. The ref was in the perfect position to see the line and the players foot.

Of course if he was never out of bounds the ref would have had some discretion. However, if from his vantage point the ref saw the player go out of bounds he had to make one of two calls. He either calls the player out-of-bounds and awards the ball to the other team or he calls the foul. His only other option is to pretend that he didn't see the player go out of bounds - not something a ref should do - that would be the official deciding the game.

I think the play caller summed it up well in his column: officials have some discretion to pass on certain calls in certain situations, such as the marginal travel in the junior varsity contest, the slight bump on the LeBron dunk, the common rather than intentional foul in the calm blow-out. Lines, on the other hand, are lines. Even a toenail on the three-point arc, if seen, means a two-point try, no exceptions. And the same thing goes for the sidelines, baselines, the free-throw lines, and the division line

I thought there were at least a couple of camera angles that suggest he was at least a good foot from the sideline. While I admit it's not concrete, I think you would win the civil suit :). If the ref thought he was bumped out of bounds, then I agree that he HAS to call something. I think it is more likely that he anticipated him being bumped out of bounds and made a (poor) judgment call.

-jk
02-12-2008, 03:14 PM
He was definitely much less (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No5hnQ0JjUA) than a foot from the sideline.

-jk

allenmurray
02-12-2008, 03:25 PM
He was definitely much less (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No5hnQ0JjUA) than a foot from the sideline.

-jk

one foot, 1/64th of an inch, what's the difference?

Reisen
02-12-2008, 03:32 PM
The people who are saying that, if it had been Duke who got the call at the end, everyone would be screaming bloody murder, are exactly right. I don't know why the entire world hates Duke so much, but at this point it is undeniable.

For those who think the refs should have swallowed their whistles, you may be pleased to know that much of the Georgetown board agrees with you and doesn't think the Hoyas deserved to win that way.

What I think is that they should have swallowed their whistles, yes, but not just for that play. I don't think the end of the game should be called any differently than the middle. And in this case the refs were ridiculous, all game. They called 48 fouls. Four players fouled out, and two more had four fouls each. There were 51 free throws.

You know how Villanova was in position to tie the game near the end? Too-quick whistles. They had exactly four - four! - field goals the entire second half, going 0-13 from 3-point range. But they also took 18 FTs and made 16. If you live by ticky-tack calls, it's fair that you die by them, too.

I haven't read the Playcaller's column but will look forward to it.

As for Georgetown as a team, they are not a bad team. in fact, they are pretty good, and deserving of their 10-2 conference record. They are a great defensive team, leading the country in FG % defense. But they are far from a great offensive team. As has been pointed out, their schedule has been weak, although their only losses have been on the road to ranked teams. They aren't a great, NC-contending team IMO. But they are a legit top-20 and, if they were in the ACC I'd like their chances against anybody but Duke and a healthy Carolina. They could certainly lose to a MD or a Clemson, but I don't think those teams are superior overall.

The expectations for the Hoyas got out of whack because of their tremendous end-of-season run last year. But that run was spearheaded by Jeff Green, who has gone to the NBA. Unlike Singler, the Hoyas' freshman stud (Austin Freeman) seems to be hitting a freshman wall. Wallace has been in a shooting slump. But their defense will keep them competitive against anybody. In the tourney, I think they are at least a sweet-16 team, maybe elite-8. That ain't bad.

I'll tell you something else. They are easy to root for because their coach is even-keel and classy, and because they are regular students who are polite, go to class, and hang out with other students on and around campus. Hibbert stayed in school for his senior year because, in his own words, he "loves" being a student. Jonathan Wallace even led the prayers at last Sunday's mass, and he's been admitted to Georgetown law school.

Last night's game was ugly in the extreme, but it's not like the other team deserved to win it. I don't think they even deserved to be close.

This is definitely the best post in this thread. While I stand by my earlier comments, I agree with each of the points Mapei made here. I would even liken them to the Redskins this year, who had some tremendous players on paper, a fantastic defense, but never could get the offense consistently clicking.

Reisen
02-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Yeah, but you wouldn't want to play them would you.

They might not be good, but they can beat anybody in the country and surprise no one.

That means that they can go deep in the playoffs. Then, if they find Hibbert and Wallace shoots, you tell me who beats them. (rhetorical, I'm sure you can name several, but I'm equally sure that you could be sure about none).

Look, Georgetown lost the hub of their offense for the past three seasons and did not have a natural replacement for the position (high pivot) in the Princeton. They nevertheless play an entertaining style, defend extremely well, and when they find a way to function smoothly on offense, can hurt anyone.

Finally, while they are inconsistent on the offensive end to date, the season ain't over. Should they catch fire late, you might be eating your words. Just in case, do you like mustard or mayo? ;)

Just to be clear, I'm a Georgetown fan, season-ticket holder, and current grad student. I would love, love, love for them to be having the type of year Duke is. However, instead of overachieving, they are consistently underachieving against a very weak schedule/competition.

So to answer your question, if Duke is lucky enough to get a 1 seed, I would definitely want them as our 2 seed. The Hoyas turn the ball over against teams like William & Mary. Against Duke, you might see 30 turnovers... Hibbert has the potential to be an All-American, but just isn't playing up to it. He has a great, old-school game, but just isn't going strong to the hoop, and doesn't give himself chances to score enough points.

I hope they do catch fire, and just like the New York Giants, you never know who will click when. But that's going to take better play from Hibbert on the offensive end, better guard play, and more scoring from the bench. I'm not sure I see all that lining up this year...

feldspar
02-12-2008, 06:53 PM
So every time Greg uses his off-hand to push a defender away he should be called for a foul? Every time Nolan bodies up on a ballhandler a whistle should blow? Every time Demarcus bumps a cutter or Kyle leans into a screen they should be whistled?


From what I have been told and taught by countless basketball officials from rec league refs all the way up to a Final Four official, fouls are subject to interpretation, but 99.9% of the time, violations are not.

So, yes, you're going to get some variation when Greg pushes off or Nolan bodies up but if one of those guys steps on the out of bounds line, you better blow the friggin' whistle.

MChambers
02-12-2008, 08:37 PM
From what I have been told and taught by countless basketball officials from rec league refs all the way up to a Final Four official, fouls are subject to interpretation, but 99.9% of the time, violations are not.

So, yes, you're going to get some variation when Greg pushes off or Nolan bodies up but if one of those guys steps on the out of bounds line, you better blow the friggin' whistle.

Right. Because if you're out of bounds, you're out of bounds, whether or not you gain an advantage. But if there's contact, there's the question of who had position, and whether anyone gained an advantage. So fouls will always be subject to interpretation.

feldspar
02-12-2008, 09:48 PM
Right. Because if you're out of bounds, you're out of bounds, whether or not you gain an advantage. But if there's contact, there's the question of who had position, and whether anyone gained an advantage. So fouls will always be subject to interpretation.

Bingo. I seriously implore The Playcaller to discuss advantage/disadvantage in a future column, as this is one of the MOST central issues, and one of the MOST misunderstood issue to officiating basketball.

greybeard
02-12-2008, 10:47 PM
I have to admit that I haven't really studied the film (so what else is new). That said, I'm not getting what all this discussion/criticism is about.

Kid makes a move to the basket as clock is winding down but far from zero. Then things get pretty wild. He loses it, W comes out of crowd with the ball, and starts dribbling. V guy takes after him and runs to context, bumbs him on the thigh. All this speaks to the game being afoot.

Now, if the V guy was too aggressive and made a move towards W that was pointless and bumbed him in an act of aggression, what I don't understand is why people are making a big thing about the ref's calling it? Suppose he had stolen the ball as a consequence; the ref, watching the play, has to call it, if he saw a foul, right? So, the guy makes an aggressive move and bumps the offensive player, pretty clearly. Tries to make a play and makes a foul.

To me, the issue is not worthy of further dissection. If 3 seconds had been on the clock, the foul would have deprived GT of a chance to win. Did the ref know how much time was left. Could W, however, the amount of time left, if he had not been knocked off balance, put up a two hand shot that would have had an outside shot.

If you foul someone, I mean make an aggressive play towards them and try to impact the play (the defender did know where the sideline was), and the ref calls it, why a debate?

Seems to me that it is not the ref's judgment that is being questioned but rather something else. What? The unfairness of it all, of having games that come down to a last play often ending on a complete fluke, a "Hail Mary" this or that. But, when it is a HM, how can you blame anyone? It remains, however, just as unfair. So, this guy took the heat for the unfairness of Jimmy V's championship; El Deano's first championship; El Deano's last championship; Fluttie's pass; each of those plays was no less unfair than this one; those we have to celebrate (at least not question as illegitimate), but the lack of satisfaction at how each ended is really no different.

Sorry to have rambled: I know that this rant is difficult to follow. While I don't have the energy to think this whole thing through, it seems to me that there is enough in this jumble to cause people to be open a possibility that the reason that everybody seems so focused on questioning the "unfairmess" of this play is that the most important moment in this and other sports we play and watch is often decided by precisely what we decry here, a play that is unsatisfying as a resolution for a wonderful athletic contest.

dukie8
02-12-2008, 11:30 PM
Since you so vehemently disagree, I'd be incredibly interested in seeing you counter each of The Playcaller's very well-thought-out points in his latest column.

"well-thought-out?" are you kidding me? that was one rambling piece that managed to spend more time whining about the announcers than actually analyzing the play. i thought i was reading something from an op-ed page rather than a thorough analysis of the play.

my biggest problem with the refs was that they made the call and didn't confer or look at the monitor. there were multiple things going on -- contact, a possible out-of-bounds and possible clock issues (how did they know that the play ended with 0.1 left versus no time left?). it was completely inexcusable that they did neither.

i still have no idea why people continue to believe that just because there was contact, then there had to be a foul. as pointed out above, there is contact on nearly every play -- particularly ones in the paint -- and there isn't a foul called on every play. the keys are whether there was any advantaged gained by the contact and who initiated it. the gtown player put his head down and dribbled right into the villanova player. that is not a foul on the villanova player and even if the contact had been initiated by the villanova player, it was incidental.

feldspar
02-12-2008, 11:36 PM
"well-thought-out?" are you kidding me?

Um...no. So never mind, I guess.

I find it interesting how our new columnist is already being boxed in by posters here. It's only his second column, you know?

dukie8
02-12-2008, 11:52 PM
Um...no. So never mind, I guess.

I find it interesting how our new columnist is already being boxed in by posters here. It's only his second column, you know?

i like his writing style but he hardly broke down the issues of the gtown play in a well-thought out and cogent manner. moreover, if he just is going to be a ref homer defending refs when they clearly were in the wrong, then he should expect to get hammered on here. i did want to vomit over the taleb reference.

feldspar
02-12-2008, 11:56 PM
if he just is going to be a ref homer defending refs when they clearly were in the wrong, then he should expect to get hammered on here.

So that's your assessment of our new columnist? That's disappointing.

It's interesting how sure you are of your own opinion (and let's be clear that's all you have here...your opinion). I wonder if there is anything behind that opinion, such as some sort of credentials that qualify you to make such a clear-cut statement that you are the one who is in the right in this situation.

dukie8
02-13-2008, 12:06 AM
So that's your assessment of our new columnist? That's disappointing.

It's interesting how sure you are of your own opinion (and let's be clear that's all you have here...your opinion). I wonder if there is anything behind that opinion, such as some sort of credentials that qualify you to make such a clear-cut statement that you are the one who is in the right in this situation.

i have a tad more than just my opinion -- like the same opinion of all 3 guys calling the game, every columnist i read today and most of the people on this thread. i'd also like to point out that recognizing that the refs didn't conference with each other and didn't check the monitor to see the clock is not an opinion. that is a simple fact that you are confusing with an opinion. i think your camp with the opinion (and let's be clear that's all you have here) that it was the right call is just a tad smaller and less supported.

regarding the columnist, yes, i do have the ability to recognize meandering text that focuses on tangential issues (like the announcers) and fails to effectively analyze the issue at hand. apparently others on here also have that amazing ability.

darthur
02-13-2008, 12:56 AM
regarding the columnist, yes, i do have the ability to recognize meandering text that focuses on tangential issues (like the announcers) and fails to effectively analyze the issue at hand. apparently others on here also have that amazing ability.

My respect for people on this board is just plummeting. You may never get an opportunity like this again. Just once in your lives, admit that there is someone talking who knows far more than you do. Listen to what they say. The fact that you obviously feel strongly about the play makes you less, not more, qualified to judge it.

darthur
02-13-2008, 01:01 AM
As for your opinion matching the opinion of the commentators, sportswriters, and bloggers, well, I hope you realize that the majority of commentators, sportswriters and bloggers also believe Duke plays most of their games 8 on 5. The fact that so many people believe that doesn't make them right. It makes them ignorant. Tune them out. I have been watching basketball only 7 or 8 years, and almost every game, I hear an announcer say something even I recognize as blatantly false. When a ref comes here and tells you this is how things are done, THEN you should listen.

TussAgee11
02-13-2008, 01:26 AM
One thing that is has been unrecognized in the past couple posts is that the clock stops as soon as the official blows the whistle (thanks precision timing and scoring). There was no need to check the monitor to see if the foul did indeed precede the clock potentially running out. PTS takes care of that issue.

See? Technology works in the Nova game, but human error fails us in the Tenn-Rutgers game...

Reisen
02-13-2008, 02:08 AM
My respect for people on this board is just plummeting. You may never get an opportunity like this again. Just once in your lives, admit that there is someone talking who knows far more than you do. Listen to what they say. The fact that you obviously feel strongly about the play makes you less, not more, qualified to judge it.

This is complete bunk. I too found the column a bit heavy on style and lacking in substance, an opinion echoed by many in this very thread. That said, I'm not the one taking the time out of my schedule to write a guest column, and the very fact he's being nice enough to do that makes me nod my head to him.

Regardless, the fact that he's been a ref for 8 years makes him no more qualified to judge the play than someone who's been an intense fan for 15. We're not talking about a complicated cancer diagnosis here or a theoretical mathematical proof. Does being a ref give him perspective or insight into what affected the refs' decision? Absolutely. Does it somehow negate the fact that we've seen similar end-of-game situations occur a thousand times before without a whistle? No way. Were each of the referee crews wrong every time they swallowed their whistles at a bump that gave no one an advantage with less than a second left in a tie game?

The best refs recognize that their job is not to be robots, but to be sure the spirit of the game is being enforced. I think the fact that you have thousands of people, from basketball announcers, to fans at the game, to every basketball message board on the net, all crying foul (pun intended) is very telling. The opinion crossed, rather than followed biases, given that even Georgetown fans were plainly admitting Villanova got jobbed.

To me, it seems pretty clear that while the letter of the rules may well have been properly enforced, the spirit most certainly was not. I have no problem with those that side with the refs: I suspect these are the same people who felt the "tuck rule" was a good call, and that a golfer should be DQ'd for accidentally signing the wrong score card. But on this one, I'll go with Jay and Co.'s collective basketball wisdom (and hey, that of pretty much the rest of the basketball world), even over another ref's.

feldspar
02-13-2008, 09:45 AM
Absolutely. Does it somehow negate the fact that we've seen similar end-of-game situations occur a thousand times before without a whistle? No way.

I'm not getting your point. Just because you've seen end-game situations, that makes you qualified to judge a play based on rules you've never studied, games you've never officiated and rule tests you've never taken?



Were each of the referee crews wrong every time they swallowed their whistles at a bump that gave no one an advantage with less than a second left in a tie game?

Again, is your point that the Georgetown player was NOT put at a disadvantage (pushed out of bounds)? If so, that's fine, since the evidence is inconclusive. But the above quote is really comparing apples to oranges.

Just as I don't take financial advice from broke people, it's really hard for me to swallow the heated opinion of a fan who has nary picked up a rulebook in his life who wants to judge an official's call. I'm not painting you with that brush, who knows if you actually know the rules of basketball. My point is that officiating basketball is a lot harder than it looks, and when you pick up and study that rulebook, strap on a shirt and whistle and are held accountable to its contents in front of hundreds or thousands of people rather than sitting in an armchair relying on a basketball commentator, your viewpoint changes.

I'd much rather rely on the opinion of a guy who has reffed hundreds, if not thousands, of basketball games over his lifetime, rather than three commentators who've never blown a whistle in their lives.

But to each their own, I guess.

darthur
02-13-2008, 10:05 AM
I think the fact that you have thousands of people, from basketball announcers, to fans at the game, to every basketball message board on the net, all crying foul (pun intended) is very telling.

You are right. It's telling about how little basketball fans, and even announcers, understand the game they are watching.

The call was quite possibly a wrong call - after all, it's not clear the player stepped out of bounds. But that's not why people are complaining. They are complaining because they think there was too little time on the clock, the contact was not hard enough, and the foul was too important. But none of that matters.

There are two questions of interest: (1) did the guy step out of bounds, and (2) should the rules of basketball be changed to not force the ref to call a foul in this situation. But the people complaining are too busy complaining to actually learn what the real issues are. Here, you have someone telling you who actually knows what he's talking about, and you'd rather ignore him and just keep complaining. Have fun. There will be more calls you don't understand, and as long as you ignore why they are made, you'll never understand them, let alone be able to meaningfully discuss ways to prevent them from happening in the future.

greybeard
02-13-2008, 10:21 AM
Just to be clear, I'm a Georgetown fan, season-ticket holder, and current grad student. I would love, love, love for them to be having the type of year Duke is. However, instead of overachieving, they are consistently underachieving against a very weak schedule/competition.

So to answer your question, if Duke is lucky enough to get a 1 seed, I would definitely want them as our 2 seed. The Hoyas turn the ball over against teams like William & Mary. Against Duke, you might see 30 turnovers... Hibbert has the potential to be an All-American, but just isn't playing up to it. He has a great, old-school game, but just isn't going strong to the hoop, and doesn't give himself chances to score enough points.

I hope they do catch fire, and just like the New York Giants, you never know who will click when. But that's going to take better play from Hibbert on the offensive end, better guard play, and more scoring from the bench. I'm not sure I see all that lining up this year...

Don't see major differences between what you said and what I said.

A few comments about what you've said. Georgetown is in the Big East. I'm not impressed by schedule ratings. They are in the Big East and are competing well, not terrifically, but well.

Big men flourish when they get touches in the context of a well functioning offense (there are exceptions, a guy like Hansbrough) in spots that matter.

JTIII has ALWAYS employed one principle mode of ball distribution as the key to whatever Princeton-derivation he has ever played or coached--a high-post pivot who was a terrific receiver of the ball, a great one-touch passer, a great shooter from the catch spot, a great distributer off of the catch-and-read, and a great attacker of the basket if that was left open because of a commitment to shut the other options down.

Now, JTIII, and Hibbert, do not have that on this team. This team, and JTIII, have been and are in the process of trying to hone a decent alternative or alternatives, or are going back to the core principal with no one who is really suited to man that spot.

The consequence, the flow of the offense is not there. Hibbert is not the only one on this team who seems to be outside his offensive comfort zone. I do not think that more can be expected of him in this state of team confusion.

On the otherhand, there are times when Georgetown finds a flow to its offensive game; when it does, Hibbert hurts folks.

In the meantime, like I said, if Wallace catches his rhythm in any given game, nobody wants to be on the court against that Georgetown team. Nobody.

Yet Another Devil Lawyer
02-13-2008, 10:26 AM
For the poster who doubted Hank Nichols' opinion of the call, here it is: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20080213_Referee_receives_backup_on_Villanova_call .html

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the official couldn't have known that there was only a tenth of a second left. If there had been a half-second when Wallace stepped out of bounds, then it's a significant advantage to Villanova. Given that possibility, of course he has to make a call.

pratt '04
02-13-2008, 10:35 AM
what do you expect when you make outlandish claims like the nichols would agree with you? it's not an either or situation -- no foul or a turnover.

If you read the link posted by Yet Another Devil Lawyer above, you'll see that my claims were not outlandish, and Hank Nichols did, in fact agree with me. As he says in the article, it was an either or situation.

Nichols' quote from the article:

"When a guy has the ball and gets body-bumped and the body bump forces him to go out of bounds . . . the referee has two choices," Nichols said yesterday. "He either has to call the foul or call the guy for out of bounds. It's the judgment on the referee's part on what was more important on the play."

(emphasis mine)

feldspar
02-13-2008, 10:51 AM
For the poster who doubted Hank Nichols' opinion of the call, here it is: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20080213_Referee_receives_backup_on_Villanova_call .html

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the official couldn't have known that there was only a tenth of a second left. If there had been a half-second when Wallace stepped out of bounds, then it's a significant advantage to Villanova. Given that possibility, of course he has to make a call.

Oh what does Hank Nichols know? He's never had to put on makeup and stare at bright lights like Jay Bilas.

RPS
02-13-2008, 11:37 AM
my biggest problem with the refs was that they made the call and didn't confer or look at the monitor. there were multiple things going on -- contact, a possible out-of-bounds and possible clock issues (how did they know that the play ended with 0.1 left versus no time left?). it was completely inexcusable that they did neither.One referee was responsible for calling the sideline. He was in great position to do so. There was no reason to confer. As I understand it, if another official thought he saw it differently, it's his responsibility to confer. Simple. With respect to the clock, precision timing takes care of that (as noted elsewhere). Not only was it not "inexcusable" that the refs didn't confer, assuming the call was OOB, there is absolutely no basis to think they should have conferred.


i still have no idea why people continue to believe that just because there was contact, then there had to be a foul. as pointed out above, there is contact on nearly every play -- particularly ones in the paint -- and there isn't a foul called on every play. the keys are whether there was any advantaged gained by the contact and who initiated it.If the GU player was OOB, a call of some sort must be made -- either foul or turnover. In the middle of the floor, no call is necessary. As PC stated, one can question the foul call. The problem was that the entire discussion missed the necessary predicate (just as you are still doing here).

Suppose you were the ref and, despite the bump, decided to let it go. 'Nova inbounds the ball by throwing an alley oop (there's no time for a catch-and-shoot per the "Trent Tucker" rule) for a game-winning dunk. Remember that the clock stops automatically due to precision timing so you can't "let the clock run out." If the bump caused the GU player to go OOB, you-as-referee effectively decided the game despite trying to "let-it-go" because it was so late in the game and so far from the basket.


the gtown player put his head down and dribbled right into the villanova player. that is not a foul on the villanova player and even if the contact had been initiated by the villanova player, it was incidental.If OOB (as I assume), your analysis means the call is turnover.


i like his writing style but he hardly broke down the issues of the gtown play in a well-thought out and cogent manner. moreover, if he just is going to be a ref homer defending refs when they clearly were in the wrong, then he should expect to get hammered on here.PC implied that the ref who called the foul was wrong in that regard. The problem highlighted was the failure to see the predicate step. That's not being a "ref homer."


Regardless, the fact that he's been a ref for 8 years makes him no more qualified to judge the play than someone who's been an intense fan for 15.So an intense fan of CourTV is qualified to argue before the Supreme Court?


Does it somehow negate the fact that we've seen similar end-of-game situations occur a thousand times before without a whistle?Allegedly similar situations in the middle of the floor are in no way similar.


Were each of the referee crews wrong every time they swallowed their whistles at a bump that gave no one an advantage with less than a second left in a tie game?If the GU player wasn't OOB, the whistle is not likely blown. Your hypothetical whistle-swallowing crews could all be right and the GU/'Nova ref also right.


I think the fact that you have thousands of people, from basketball announcers, to fans at the game, to every basketball message board on the net, all crying foul (pun intended) is very telling.I think the fact that you have thousands of people, from basketball announcers, to fans at the game, to every (non-Duke) basketball message board on the net, all crying that Duke gets all the calls is very telling.

Reisen
02-13-2008, 02:24 PM
Again, is your point that the Georgetown player was NOT put at a disadvantage (pushed out of bounds)? If so, that's fine, since the evidence is inconclusive. But the above quote is really comparing apples to oranges.

Just as I don't take financial advice from broke people, it's really hard for me to swallow the heated opinion of a fan who has nary picked up a rulebook in his life who wants to judge an official's call. I'm not painting you with that brush, who knows if you actually know the rules of basketball. My point is that officiating basketball is a lot harder than it looks, and when you pick up and study that rulebook, strap on a shirt and whistle and are held accountable to its contents in front of hundreds or thousands of people rather than sitting in an armchair relying on a basketball commentator, your viewpoint changes.

I'd much rather rely on the opinion of a guy who has reffed hundreds, if not thousands, of basketball games over his lifetime, rather than three commentators who've never blown a whistle in their lives.

But to each their own, I guess.

That's exactly my point, Feldspar. Had the Nova player shoved the Georgetown player into the crowd, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of backlash. Instead, people would be ridiculing him for so obviously fouling.

In this case it was a bump that even in the middle of the game would often be let go by other officiating crews. I've watched the replays, and you are correct, that it's not clear either way on whether he stepped out of bounds. So in that situation, when there's no clear advantage gained, you swallow your whistle.

Your second analogy is broken, and a better one would be not taking financial advice from someone who has avidly tracked the markets for years, in favor of a CFA. I guarantee you Bilas and Co. have been around enough basketball games to have a pretty good idea what's fair or not. The fact that a ref has been through training makes him no more a better authority on calls than a newly minted CFA is a better money manager than Warren Buffet.

We're not exactly talking about an obscure rule that Bilas and co. weren't aware of...

Reisen
02-13-2008, 02:32 PM
The call was quite possibly a wrong call - after all, it's not clear the player stepped out of bounds. But that's not why people are complaining. They are complaining because they think there was too little time on the clock, the contact was not hard enough, and the foul was too important. But none of that matters.


Sure it does. Unless you're trying to allege that refs perfectly enforce the rules every time they see an infraction? We all know that isn't true. They always, always, always let SOME stuff go in order to establish the right tone for the game. Whether it's traveling, palming the ball, 5 second calls, screens, or intentional fouls in the last minute of the game, it's not like the refs don't know those rules. They just choose when to enforce them.

The choice to blow the whistle on anything less than a clear foul with less than a second left and 80 feet from the basket was a horrible one.

darthur
02-13-2008, 03:02 PM
They just choose when to enforce them.

I don't know how the column could have possibly been any clearer. This simply does not apply to out of bounds. Ever.

greybeard
02-13-2008, 03:14 PM
Does anyone question that the kid on whom the foul was called made a bad play? He aggressively charged the player with the ball in an effort to get him to make a mistake, dribble off his leg, step out of bounds, walk, etc. He hit the guy.

No one actually involved in that play had any reason to know exactly how much time was left on the clock.

The notion that refs can let fouls go or not troubles me. This kid ran at Wallace to make a play from the side that was not there. He hit him.

Bilas is on the air too much. If the ref thought that Wallace had a chance to make a play at the basket, and was deprived of that opportunity by a guy who ran at him from the side and hit him and didn't call it because he thought that Wallace would have missed, that ref would need to find new work.

Bilas needs to think before he talks. Most of the rest of the talking heads don't know better. Jay should; he needs to work less, talk less, and stop the yodeling.

Reisen
02-13-2008, 08:33 PM
I don't know how the column could have possibly been any clearer. This simply does not apply to out of bounds. Ever.

But that's where the columnist's argument breaks down... badly. His whole point was almost as if to say "It wasn't a bad call, because the ref had no choice. He had to call out of bounds, or a foul!"

No he didn't! There's actually relatively few times a ref HAS to do something, and his choice is completely taken away. One of those times would be when the ball goes through the net. Another would be when the ball goes into the crowd.

A player stepping near the baseline, is not one of those times.

So either the ref thought the player was clearly and unequivocally out of bounds, in which case the replay shows he blew the call because he in no way was clearly out of bounds, or he chose to make a tight call, in favor of a team 80 feet from the basket, who wasn't trying to shoot anyway. With less than a second left in a tie game, you (the ref) are now deciding the game. In my opinion, and that of Bilas', the rest of the announcing crew, and most of the college basketball world in general, that was where the call was blown. The refs should do everything they can to let the players decide the outcomes, and in a situation such as this, where no one gained a real advantage, and there wasn't a clear play where the ref had to blow his whistle, a foul never should have been called.

Think of it another way. Had the ref not blown the whistle, no one, not Bilas, not JT III, not you, I, nor anyone else on this board would have blinked or given it a second thought. This wasn't a Jared Jeffries wrapping Boozer up under the basket, nor a goaltend or charge on a shot. Gtown was just relieved they got a stop on Reynolds, and trying to get to overtime.

feldspar
02-13-2008, 08:41 PM
Think of it another way. Had the ref not blown the whistle, no one, not Bilas, not JT III, not you, I, nor anyone else on this board would have blinked or given it a second thought.

The official would have. And let me tell you, nothing irks an official more than KNOWING that he blew a call.

I just disagree with what I'm interpreting the premise of your post to be. What I hear you saying is that since none of us sitting on our armchairs or Bilas or JTIII would have known any better, than the ref should have just swallowed his whistle, just because it appeared to you that he may not have stepped out of bounds.

Is that a fair assessment?

darthur
02-14-2008, 01:37 AM
No he didn't! There's actually relatively few times a ref HAS to do something, and his choice is completely taken away. One of those times would be when the ball goes through the net. Another would be when the ball goes into the crowd.

A player stepping near the baseline, is not one of those times.

This entire conversation is predicated on the fact that the referee saw the player step out of bounds. If the referee did not see this, the call was terrible - nobody is arguing that.

IF he did step out of bounds (and closeness is not an issue here - either the ref saw him go out of bounds or he didn't), then yes, this is one of those times the ref HAS to do something. PC says this, everything I've ever seen watching basketball supports this, the Big East commissioner has publicly agreed, and the NCAA head of officiating has publicly agreed.

You may not agree that the refs *should* treat out of bounds this way, but by all accounts, this is how they are told to it, and how they do do it. It is also not the PC's fault that this is how out of bounds are treated - he's just relaying it on to us.

Even if you believe the player did not step out of bounds, that hardly invalidates the PC's point. As I recall, he never really says the call was right. He says the call was right *IF* the player stepped out of bounds, and since the replays are inconclusive, it wasn't clear whether that was the case or not. And he was irritated that people were criticizing the call without really understanding that, regardless of the clock and game state, the call might well have been correct.

Reisen
02-16-2008, 12:49 PM
Well, we're 14 minutes into the Syracuse game, and Georgetown is down 20 points. This is against a bubble team that's 6-6 in conference. I'm REALLY glad this isn't a home game...

Hibbert has scored 1 point off a free throw. Gtown has no points in the paint, and no fast-break points.

Change a couple of calls earlier in the year, and Georgetown is unranked right now, instead of top 10. Then again, I suppose the same thing could be said for UNC, hehe...

dukie8
02-16-2008, 12:53 PM
this is a team that returned 4 starters from a final 4 team. they are not good. i hope that we get them as a 2 seed because they won't be around for the regional finals...

loran16
02-16-2008, 12:58 PM
Well, we're 14 minutes into the Syracuse game, and Georgetown is down 20 points. This is against a bubble team that's 6-6 in conference. I'm REALLY glad this isn't a home game...

Hibbert has scored 1 point off a free throw. Gtown has no points in the paint, and no fast-break points.

Change a couple of calls earlier in the year, and Georgetown is unranked right now, instead of top 10. Then again, I suppose the same thing could be said for UNC, hehe...

Most irritating part of the game...the commentator goes "Georgetown is #1 statistically on defense, so how are the Cuse doing this?"

The answer is obvious, mr. uneducated commentator. A look at Georgetown shows that while their PA/per game is the lowest in the nation, its because (DUH) they play at a slow pace allowing for less opposing possessions. With TWELVE turnovers and a fast Cuse offense not waiting long to take shots in their own possessions, it's not that surprising that on a good day shooting wise Cuse could put up these #s.

The question should be, why is Gtown letting Cuse speed up the pace of play and can they hold back the tempo enough for them to come back.

(Odds are, no...because a team that needs to hold the tempo slow has trouble scoring a lot in a half...but its possible.)

Reisen
02-16-2008, 01:01 PM
Hibbert has just scored his first basket, with a little over a minute to go in the half. Georgetown has cut it to 16.

Reisen
02-16-2008, 01:07 PM
Doug Gottleib just called Georgetown the most overrated team in the nation at halftime.

hughgs
02-16-2008, 01:08 PM
This entire conversation is predicated on the fact that the referee saw the player step out of bounds. If the referee did not see this, the call was terrible - nobody is arguing that.

You may not agree that the refs *should* treat out of bounds this way, but by all accounts, this is how they are told to it, and how they do do it. It is also not the PC's fault that this is how out of bounds are treated - he's just relaying it on to us.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a sport with OOB lines where the judges don't treat the lines as black and white. If the line judge sees it over/on the line then you make the call. If you don't see it then you don't call it.

houstondukie
02-16-2008, 02:07 PM
Doug Gottleib just called Georgetown the most overrated team in the nation at halftime.

I have to say that I am in total agreement.