Does this prove the Hawks conspiracy in their loss?
I don’t think it proves anything Mr. Conspiracy Obsession.
It was a physical game as far as contact, etc. which I think favored Syracuse… at least the way the game was called seemed to favor their play style. I thought GU did a good job of adjusting but there were a few calls that could have gone GU’s way that didn’t. There were a couple of egregious over the back plays that went against them, which I thought was poor. Ultimately they had an opportunity to win the game at the end and even got a call that went their way to give them a second chance after they blew the first one. They couldn’t convert on either one.
I didn’t see blatant favoritism in this game.
The Virginia - Iowa State game was different however. Iowa St. was still in the game, down by 8 points (after being down 14 at halftime) with 13 minutes to play when their best player got his fourth foul on a terrible call (replay showed he never touched the guy). Fairness and objectivity don’t allow an official to make that call at that point in the game unless there is something going on. The guy had half the teams points and I said at that moment that Iowa State was done. The officials had influenced the game too much for it to be competitive after that. To add insult to injury, only 30 seconds later they called a fourth foul on another key Iowa St. player and they never got within single digits again, game over. Not one player on Virginia had more than 3 while 3 players for Iowa St. had 4. It changed the game.
In the big picture of college basketball this season, which team is more important to the ncaa? Nobody gives a crap about Iowa State…
So yeah, it is still there and isn’t going away anytime soon.
I think it was the angle the referee had that appeared to be a foul. And, we all know refs have a habit of prejudging a play before it happens on occasions where it looks like a foul will happen. Not that there is any conspiracy to have one team move on over another
I guarantee you that the officials knew the guy had 3 fouls and giving him that fourth one was going to put Iowa St. at a disadvantage. It changed the game from being somewhat competitive to giving Iowa St. a 1 in 10 chance of winning (or less).
When the officials know that one teams’ key player has 3 fouls and there is still lots of time left, they need to make sure the foul is legitimate. This one wasn’t even close, no reason for the whistle. Remember, these guys are the best officials in the ncaa and while they do make mistakes, they know better in a situation like this.
It shouldn’t have happened.
Just wondered what the guarantee is based on.
And if the guarantee is worthless then what is the reward for Harold and me
To me, three refs are like three men or women in a broadcast both. Over coverage. What gets me about the three people in the booth or two in the both and one on the sidelines is the manufacturing of trivial stories at the cost of accurately calling the game, just like three refs are too much when we get too many fouls or too many stories. In my days in college, for that matter even in high school, the person who committed a foul was pointed at by the ref and the player raised their hand, so you knew who called the foul and who committed the foul or was called for the foul. Refs would give a hand signal indicating the kind of foul or violation that was committed. Today all we get is three people blabbing in the booth and or sidelines and we don’t even see half of the refs calls. About half the time there is no mention of who was in on a play or a turnover. Then sometimes in a game the two or three in the booth begin to give their subjective opinions on calls and again they neglect the game play for minutes at a time.
Because every time an official reports a foul, they are advised of how many fouls that player has and they (hopefully) communicate with each other regarding which players have how many fouls, etc. ESPECIALLY when the best player on one of the teams gets into foul trouble. It’s called advantage/disadvantage and making the right call within the context of the game, how it is being played, how it will effect one team or the other, etc. It is something that officials at this level better know how to do. They wouldn’t be officiating at this level if they didn’t know these things.
Anything wrong with admitting it was a horrible call for Iowa State? No reason for an official to make that call in that situation.
Have you officiated basketball? ever?
Yeah… but it has become less of a game and more of a show now. That is what you end up with… a bunch of nonsense and the intention of creating a story instead of letting things happen and allowing the story to develop on its’ own.
I don’t think Harry or the hopper will understand this but that is what it has devolved into. Manufactured stories, like a soap opera, instead of pure sport and the enjoyment of a game.
You don’t have the foggiest idea what officiating is all about. If they are doing their job correctly, they know exactly how many fouls each player has, particularly when the best player on one of the teams is in foul trouble early in the second half. It put Iowa State at a huge disadvantage and it was a terrible call. No need to make the call and influence the game in that way. If it had been an obvious, legitimate foul then I don’t have a problem with it, but it wasn’t close. There is no angle that compels an official to make that call, except the angle of affecting the game.
You like to attribute words and ideasto me way too much for my taste. Especially as they are frequently inaccurate…Please avoid…
So says the conspiracist. I think it was a foul. Dumb foul at that.
Yet, GU only shoots 5 FT but Duke shoots 42 and you let the GU situation go with no problem and complain about the refs in the Duke game. You do this all the time because that’s what happens with conspiracies.
He can’t prove anything so he resorts to this. Sort of like Donald Trump
Jim H: Good analysis. But this doesn’t help the fans who are watching the game. Many times a call is far away from the TV coverage. AS Grasshopper said in one of his posts, its according to the angle or where and when a foul or violation occurs.
You didn’t see the play and you probably didn’t even watch the game. They replayed it several times and it was clear there was no foul.
The difference between the two games, Gonzaga and Duke, and I will have to explain this to you as I always do, is that Gonzaga had several opportunities to win the game. In fact, they got an extra chance at the end when an official who was out of position called the Syracuse player out of bounds. Gonzaga had their chances.
Duke, on the other hand, shot 42 free throws in a game that didn’t warrant that many calls or foul shots on their part. UNCW had no chance to win the game because of it.
Do you understand the difference?
I doubt it… and no, I don’t do this all the time. It just appears that way to you because you are persistently confused and aren’t aware of the situation. It overloads your mental capacity…
You state your opinions and you ask questions. I answered your question as to why I guaranteed something. If I’m wrong and they didn’t know Niang had 3 fouls when the ref made that egregious error, then they aren’t doing their job properly.
If my comments are inaccurate then you have the ability to correct them so I know what you really think. I have tried to get you to clarify and explain, but you won’t do it.
your comments regarding my ignorance of your opinion or reality were and are inaccurate.
please avoid attributing ignorance on my part or anyone else’s part for that matter.
You can and usually do manage to avoid such comments, why you chose not do so in this instance is something I neither know nor care to know. Please just follow your normal practice and talk about the games or how the conspirators are affecting the game or whatever, not about your opinion of the ignorance of any other party.
[quote=“Harold, post:17, topic:5944”]
your comments regarding my ignorance of your opinion or reality were and are inaccurate.please avoid attributing ignorance on my part or anyone else’s part for that matter.
If the comments were inaccurate, it would be helpful if you explained why, but I am always left without any explanation or reasoning. Ignorance only means that I believe you don’t understand where I am coming from. That is why I said I “don’t think”, so I really am not sure. On the other hand, I am sure that grasshopper does not understand because he usually only sees things one way. The fact that he has never acknowledged he is mistaken or in error on anything is evidence enough. I’m not asking anyone to accept what I am saying, only to acknowledge that they understand it. Grasshopper usually twists my words or over exaggerates what I say in an effort to disprove it.
Since you don’t know and don’t care to know, there is no reason to respond. I think I’ve probably explained about as much as I can, so you are right, I don’t have much more to say.
Well, you also believe one way on this. And I do understand why you say what you do. I just don’t buy the conspiracy. Someone has to be the voice of reason