PDA

View Full Version : UCLA gets all the calls



SilkyJ
03-07-2008, 12:17 AM
Most of you guys are probably asleep, but I know there are a handful of folks who just watched Stanford get screwed at the end of regulation by the refs.

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

Namtilal
03-07-2008, 12:24 AM
Agreed, and what makes it even worse was the egregious non-call on the go-ahead shot by Stanford just seconds before. There was an extreme amount of contact -- Love got knocked to the ground by the shooter. It was absolutely either a block or a charge. And they followed it up with the bad call on a phantom foul at the other end???

SilkyJ
03-07-2008, 12:31 AM
Agreed, and what makes it even worse was the egregious non-call on the go-ahead shot by Stanford just seconds before. There was an extreme amount of contact -- Love got knocked to the ground by the shooter. It was absolutely either a block or a charge. And they followed it up with the bad call on a phantom foul at the other end???

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

TussAgee11
03-07-2008, 01:04 AM
So I'm supposed to blame refs when it was Stanford who blew their lead, and then scored 4 points in OT...

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

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

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

Cameron
03-07-2008, 03:21 AM
Whether Stanford's loss was unjust or not, this was an absolute demoralizing loss for the Cardinal. With a win in Pauley, Stanford moves to 25-4 overall (I believe) and ushers themselves past UCLA as one of the leading contenders for the top seed in the West. It's a shame they crumbled down the stretch, but I just knew the Bruins would take this game. I watched the game (I thought the block looked pretty clean also) and the tides were starting to shift midway through the second.

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

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

kydevil
03-07-2008, 08:00 AM
The call Collison got was pretty terrible, it looked like the ref was determined to call the fould and was most likely going to if he was given an oppourtunity.
After that call I decided to pack it up and hit the sack, those pac-10 games are had to stay up through.

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

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/7884298/Bruins-slug-it-out-vs.-Cardinal-with-defense,-little-luck

Dukerati
03-07-2008, 08:31 AM
Classy comment by Collison. You know it's a bad call when the player who got fouled says it was a "complete block". I watched the game too (thought I'd stay up and vote for Demarcus a few hundred more times) and even though Stanford blew their lead, they still would have won the game if not for that call. The refs decided the game. If that was Duke in the NCAA tournament, I know I would be inconsolable.

kydevil
03-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Agreed, I had a feeling that if the refs had a chance they would give UCLA a good call. However, Stanford took their shot too early, leaving 7.5ish seconds left for UCLA to go down the court and get "fouled."

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-07-2008, 09:39 AM
I'm less concerned with the call itself (I'd love to hear Feldspar, Playcaller, etc. share their wisdom and experience on if that was/was not a good call) but I'm irked that it got so little attention. If Duke had gotten that call Sportscenter would have done a 5 minute segment, Swofford would have suspended the official, and talk radio would spend the next month on how "Duke gets all the calls." Instead we get one replay and I'd be surprised if it's even mentioned again after a day or so.

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

Grrr, feelin' grumpy on a rainy morning.

feldspar
03-07-2008, 09:49 AM
I'm less concerned with the call itself (I'd love to hear Feldspar, Playcaller, etc. share their wisdom and experience on if that was/was not a good call) but I'm irked that it got so little attention. If Duke had gotten that call Sportscenter would have done a 5 minute segment, Swofford would have suspended the official, and talk radio would spend the next month on how "Duke gets all the calls." Instead we get one replay and I'd be surprised if it's even mentioned again after a day or so.

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

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

crimsonandblue
03-07-2008, 09:59 AM
It was a bad call. It was a particularly bad point to make a bad call. But as for, "what if Duke had gotten that call?" well, they showed the replay three or four times in OT and said it was a bad call. I don't know how much else attention the call could have gotten. And the announcers were noticeably restrained in commenting at all on the officiating all game (e.g. the foul on Finger when Westbrook looked to have just fallen chasing a loose ball and/or traveled).

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

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

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-07-2008, 10:10 AM
But as for, "what if Duke had gotten that call?" well, they showed the replay three or four times in OT and said it was a bad call. I don't know how much else attention the call could have gotten.

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/sports/ncaabasketball/07hoops.html

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

hurleyfor3
03-07-2008, 10:22 AM
It must have been a makeup call for the "non-foul" committed by the tuba player in '82.

crimsonandblue
03-07-2008, 11:15 AM
I'm not referring to the in-game reaction, but the major media reaction (like the SC roundtable on "Does Duke get All the Calls?" in '06) and the league reaction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/sports/ncaabasketball/07hoops.html

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

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

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-07-2008, 11:17 AM
Well, it doesn't hurt UCLA that it happened at 1 a.m. eastern on a Thursday night on Fox Sports Net.

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

SilkyJ
03-07-2008, 11:33 AM
I really think the media plays up this sort of controversy just to build the hype... how many times have we seen ESPN do it with the Duke Bias BS...

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

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

rsvman
03-07-2008, 12:16 PM
It's getting quite a bit of media attention. Maybe not as much as had it been the end of the Duke-Carolina game, but still quite a bit.

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

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

johnb
03-07-2008, 12:24 PM
I was upset by the call because I like the teams ranked ahead of Duke to lose. That was a bad call, as was the intentional foul call against Stanford when its player was clearly--to my eye--trying to commit the foul by slapping at the ball.

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

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

Clipsfan
03-07-2008, 12:33 PM
I watched it live as well and was on the good end of the call (obviously I was rooting for UCLA). However, I've already made comments to several friends that UCLA received a little help from the officials last night. I am not unhappy, as this hopefully cements a one seed in the west (as long as UCLA wins at least 2-3 more games). As Duke fans, we should also be happy because this also makes the chances of Duke playing UCLA in Phoenix significantly smaller.

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

rsvman
03-07-2008, 12:54 PM
I don't understand how Mike and Mike could have watched the game when their radio show starts at about 6 am--guess they have a lot of energy.


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

mapei
03-07-2008, 05:04 PM
Both of them said it, but neither said he had been watching in real time (at least not during the segment I saw).

critmark
03-07-2008, 05:47 PM
Having watched the game on TIVO closely here are a few other comments on the officiating. Apparently traveling is never called in the Pac 10. UCLA did it a few times, Stanford several times more than that, almost never called.

The play before the bad call was a charge all the way. Wipe off the two points and Love is shooting free throws at the other end to win the game.

Brook Lopez and Love are pounding each other for 43 minutes. Love 4 fouls, Lopez ZERO!

Bottom line, bad job of officiating BOTH ways, on balance, the better team won.

77devil
03-07-2008, 05:57 PM
I don't know or care about the media in this instance. I posted 5 seconds after the game was over and hadn't listened to any talking heads.

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

Just watched the video repeatedly. It was absolutely an horrendous call made by the trailing official who had practically no relevant view - a complete homer.

dukemsu
03-08-2008, 12:18 PM
It was neither Mike nor Mike that made the comments. It was ex-Division 1 basketball coach Fran Fraschilla.

It certainly couldn't have been Mike and Mike who made that remark. Reasons why:

1. It involved a team west of Bristol.

2. It involved college basketball. Seriously, these two guys are the worst examples of football junkies who tune in to college hoops for four weekends in March and proclaim themselves experts on college basketball. Listen to their show Monday, they will make broad, sweeping generalizations on the season based upon their viewing of one or two games (Duke/UNC and probably Georgetown/Louisville). Unless, of course, Duke wins, in which case Greenberg will still rant about how Duke is vulnerable in a one-and-done situation (he'll probably use exactly those words).

Amazing how these two guys, who beat the most basic sports arguments to death, think they're far funnier than they are and are the biggest marks for their own publicity that I've ever seen (even worse than Vitale), have built themselves into a brand name.

Actually, it's not amazing at all. It's ESPN.

GTHC.

dukemsu

pfrduke
03-08-2008, 12:25 PM
It's getting quite a bit of media attention. Maybe not as much as had it been the end of the Duke-Carolina game, but still quite a bit.

Hubert brought it up this morning during Gameday when he made his Stanford-USC pick, saying Stanford got robbed and it absolutely was not a foul on UCLA.

SilkyJ
03-08-2008, 04:58 PM
Just like a couple nights ago, UCLA is losing the whole way, comes back late, and gets another homer call to win. This time, Cal inbounds the ball to the corner up 1 with 15 seconds left and gets hacked AND pushed and there is no call, ball goes out of bounds and they give the ball to UCLA. Shipp hits a ridiculous over the backboard shot. UCLA wins.

Sounds like the dean dome

jamal played well, though. even hit a 3.

DukeBlood
03-08-2008, 05:03 PM
That hurts..

If UCLA were to lose to a very poor Cal team, There was a good chance that they would be knocked out of a #1 seed. Now... Unless of a first round exit of the Pac-10 tourney they will probably be a #1 seed.

Memhpis
Tenn
UCLA
Kansas
UNC
Duke
Texas
Georgetown

These teams are all hoping for #1 seeds, or have a profile that could be deserving. Duke will have to take care of business if they want a #1 seed. Starting today

barjwr
03-08-2008, 05:05 PM
Shipp hits a ridiculous over the backboard shot . . .

Is this not illegal in college basketball? I distinctly remember Larry Bird (playing for the Celtics) losing out on two points by making a shot like that when fouled.

Coballs
03-08-2008, 05:09 PM
Should there have been a technical foul called on UCLA for leaving the bench and storming the court with time left on the clock?

kramerbr
03-08-2008, 05:12 PM
Didn't UCLA knock the ball out of bounds when they called it out on Cal with around 13 seconds left? I was watching it online so it was hard to see.

GMR
03-08-2008, 05:16 PM
SilkyJ was absolutely right....Cal led the whole game, then got homered with 15 seconds to go. Love hit an uncanny 3 pointer to bring the Bruins within 1. Cal then inbounded, and the receiver got mugged by two UCLA players. The ball rolled out of bounds, no foul call, and UCLA gets the ball. Shipp hit an unbelievable over the corner of the bankboard along the baseline to win it by one!

Incredible that UCLA wins two games in which refereeing definitely decided both games in the last few seconds on UCLA's home court. If UCLA loses both of these games, which should have been the case, they fall to at least a two seed, maybe a three seed if they don't sweep the Pac10 tourney.

I'm not sure how many points Boykin had, but it was at least 15, perhaps 17. He looked very good for Cal. We could use a guy like him! He is very good on dribble penetrations.

GMR

dukie8
03-08-2008, 05:30 PM
That hurts..

If UCLA were to lose to a very poor Cal team, There was a good chance that they would be knocked out of a #1 seed. Now... Unless of a first round exit of the Pac-10 tourney they will probably be a #1 seed.

Memhpis
Tenn
UCLA
Kansas
UNC
Duke
Texas
Georgetown

These teams are all hoping for #1 seeds, or have a profile that could be deserving. Duke will have to take care of business if they want a #1 seed. Starting today

cal's a little better than very poor. they have beaten usc, wash st, arizona st and missouri (when they still had a team) to along with all of their losses. also, gtown has no shot at a 1 seed even if they run the table. they are playing for a 2 seed and won't be around to play the 1 in their bracket if they do in fact get a 2. pencil ucla in as a 1 in phoenix. tonight is for the 1 in charlotte.

DukeBlood
03-08-2008, 05:52 PM
cal's a little better than very poor. they have beaten usc, wash st, arizona st and missouri (when they still had a team) to along with all of their losses. also, gtown has no shot at a 1 seed even if they run the table. they are playing for a 2 seed and won't be around to play the 1 in their bracket if they do in fact get a 2. pencil ucla in as a 1 in phoenix. tonight is for the 1 in charlotte.

If you consider Arizona State and Missouri quality wins.. ok then. I disagree though. They are 15-14 with a relatively weak OOC schedule. To each their own i guess.

How come Georgetown cant play for a #1 seed? They are 25-4 with no horrible losses. If they run the B-East and a couple teams lose, I cant see why they wouldnt be a #1 seed.

77devil
03-08-2008, 05:59 PM
Just like a couple nights ago, UCLA is losing the whole way, comes back late, and gets another homer call to win. This time, Cal inbounds the ball to the corner up 1 with 15 seconds left and gets hacked AND pushed and there is no call, ball goes out of bounds and they give the ball to UCLA. Shipp hits a ridiculous over the backboard shot. UCLA wins.

Sounds like the dean dome

jamal played well, though. even hit a 3.

For the second game in a row, the trailing official with an obscured view makes an horrendus call, when the official in position does not, to give UCLA another chance.

mgtr
03-08-2008, 06:18 PM
Aren't these calls reviewed by the officials organization, and refs who make poor calls disciplined or fired? If not, why not?

cspan37421
03-08-2008, 06:29 PM
Didn't UCLA knock the ball out of bounds when they called it out on Cal with around 13 seconds left? I was watching it online so it was hard to see.

In my opinion, yes. There was an official right there who blew the call, IMO. First the Cal guy gets fouled, then after knocking the ball loose as a result of fouling, the UCLA guys are the last to touch it as it goes out of bounds.

UCLA does not win if they don't hit 2 difficult shots. But they also don't win if they don't get that incredibly bad (in two ways) call.

Channing
03-08-2008, 06:29 PM
The block/bump by Lawrence Hill from Stanford is a judgment call. The out of bounds/foul that went to UCLA is also a judgment call. However - it appears that Josh Shipps shot was not a judgment call - it was an absolutely missed call that cost Cal the game:

"The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction"
http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf, Rule 7, Article 3

cspan37421
03-08-2008, 06:36 PM
bad judgment AND failure to apply the rules?

kramerbr
03-08-2008, 06:42 PM
I was looking in the rules and couldn't find anything about shooting it from behind the backboard. I always thought it was not allowed, but does anyone know if it is for sure a rule still?

kramerbr
03-08-2008, 06:48 PM
After looking at the video, it does appear that the Cal guy dives after the ball and touches it last with 16 seconds left in the game. This espn video also shows the "game winning" shot.

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=&categoryId=2459792

dukie8
03-08-2008, 06:51 PM
If you consider Arizona State and Missouri quality wins.. ok then. I disagree though. They are 15-14 with a relatively weak OOC schedule. To each their own i guess.

How come Georgetown cant play for a #1 seed? They are 25-4 with no horrible losses. If they run the B-East and a couple teams lose, I cant see why they wouldnt be a #1 seed.

arizona st? they are the 2nd team in "last 4 out" in lunardi's latest bracket (ahead of maryland, va tech, oregon, florida syracuse, etc). that was on the road too. definitely a quality win. the wash st game was on the road too. missouri was a decent club when cal beat them. that was before the team decided to go clubbing and fighting. cal certainly isn't world beaters but it definitely isn't a very poor team because such a team would not have wracked up those wins.

gtown is not passing memphis even if memphis loses first round in the cusa tournament (memphis blew out gtown). gtown isn't passing the winner tonight even if the winner loses in the first round of the acct. gtown isn't passing ucla even if it loses in the first round of the pac10 tournament. so now you are down to tennessee and the texas/kansas. i would be shocked if gtown passed tennessee if it lost first round of the sect (actually 2nd round since they get a bye). now both kansas and texas could not win the b12 tournament but i doubt it.

if gtown wanted a 1 seed, then, as a returning final 4 team, it should have scheduled a little better than the 141st best ooc schedule. the teams that i listed above all did and will get 1 seeds because of it.

DukeBlood
03-08-2008, 07:12 PM
arizona st? they are the 2nd team in "last 4 out" in lunardi's latest bracket (ahead of maryland, va tech, oregon, florida syracuse, etc). that was on the road too. definitely a quality win. the wash st game was on the road too. missouri was a decent club when cal beat them. that was before the team decided to go clubbing and fighting. cal certainly isn't world beaters but it definitely isn't a very poor team because such a team would not have wracked up those wins.

gtown is not passing memphis even if memphis loses first round in the cusa tournament (memphis blew out gtown). gtown isn't passing the winner tonight even if the winner loses in the first round of the acct. gtown isn't passing ucla even if it loses in the first round of the pac10 tournament. so now you are down to tennessee and the texas/kansas. i would be shocked if gtown passed tennessee if it lost first round of the sect (actually 2nd round since they get a bye). now both kansas and texas could not win the b12 tournament but i doubt it.

if gtown wanted a 1 seed, then, as a returning final 4 team, it should have scheduled a little better than the 141st best ooc schedule. the teams that i listed above all did and will get 1 seeds because of it.


I didnt say Georgetown was going to be a #1 seed, but they ARE in the race for the last spot. Anything can happen.

As far as Cal goes.. I completely disagree. They are 6-12 in the Pac-10(2nd to last). Sure they have a couple of quality wins(who doesnt in the Pac-10 except Oregon St.). That doesnt make them above average. They are below average. Their win over Missouri was average at best. Mizzu was 5-2 at the time with their best win over Maryland(They werent playing their best then).

Agree to disagree. Wait and see what happens.

bjornolf
03-08-2008, 10:45 PM
I was looking in the rules and couldn't find anything about shooting it from behind the backboard. I always thought it was not allowed, but does anyone know if it is for sure a rule still?

Rule 7, Section 1, Article 3 states that "the ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction". By my reading of that, Cal should have won the game.

Lotus000
03-09-2008, 01:46 AM
Rule 7, Section 1, Article 3 states that "the ball shall be out of bounds when it passes over the backboard from any direction". By my reading of that, Cal should have won the game.


Home Cooking: available at Cracker Barrel and Pauley Pavilion.