[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

Just so nobody can claim that I only complain about the officiating when Stanford loses:

There were four "could go either way" calls in end of game situations:

1. Was Oscar fouled at the end of regulation? To my eyes, the only real question was whether two Ucla guys fouled him or three. Probably only two. But one should be enough.

2. Ticky tack and one call in favor of Ucla to let them get the lead at the line in overtime. Yes, there was contact, but not as much as at the end of regulation on Oscar, and he missed. How can you give an and one on that when there was no call at the end of regulation?

3. Non call on Ucla goaltending. From my admittedly biased slow-mo review after the game, that ball is on its way down. Admittedly, it's close, but it looks post-peak to me.

4. Ucla kid hits Oscar IN THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD on the game winning play while trying to block from behind (which, admittedly, is technically legal if there is no contact but is often enough standing alone to result in a foul call). No sign that any official was going to call it. [Of course, that one did not matter, but it sure would have if Oscar missed.]

Four end of game calls that could go either way. UCLA gets ALL FOUR calls. What an amazing coincidence! [Yes, they are the top team in the league. But I did not see similar treatment yesterday for the (then) top team on the women's side.] If any of the three calls that mattered go our way, we win the game without the drama, so I guess I should be glad they all went against us.

It happens year after year with UCLA. When was the game in Pauley with no call on an obvious end of game foul by UCLA, then a call on less contact on the other end of the floor? I had the prints of those two situations in my desk for a while, IIRC, but I don't have them anymore.

Of course, it does not matter. Our kids overcame the end of game officiating. But don't ever tell me that officiating never has an effect. Basketball officiating is a difficult job that is often done very badly. [By the way, if you are a person who believes no attention should be paid to officiating and no criticism should be directed to them, I highly recommend that you stay that way! I wish I still thought officiating was fair. It makes watching games a lot more fun. Once you start noticing the effect of officiating, it takes some of the fun out of watching sports. It is one of the nice things about watching golf, though. No real effect of officials in that game.]

What really matters is that the end of game officiating made this an even more gutsy win by the good guys. If we are honest, all of us have had our frustrations with the men's team for things like trips to the mountains. But to be down three starters and win that game is really something. That was GUTSY! [Other parts of the anatomy come to mind, but I will leave it as "gutsy."]

Go Stanford!

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

Just so nobody can claim that I only complain about the officiating when Stanford loses:

There were four "could go either way" calls in end of game situations:

1. Was Oscar fouled at the end of regulation? To my eyes, the only real question was whether two Ucla guys fouled him or three. Probably only two. But one should be enough.

2. Ticky tack and one call in favor of Ucla to let them get the lead at the line in overtime. Yes, there was contact, but not as much as at the end of regulation on Oscar, and he missed. How can you give an and one on that when there was no call at the end of regulation?

3. Non call on Ucla goaltending. From my admittedly biased slow-mo review after the game, that ball is on its way down. Admittedly, it's close, but it looks post-peak to me.

4. Ucla kid hits Oscar IN THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD on the game winning play while trying to block from behind (which, admittedly, is technically legal if there is no contact but is often enough standing alone to result in a foul call). No sign that any official was going to call it. [Of course, that one did not matter, but it sure would have if Oscar missed.]

Four end of game calls that could go either way. UCLA gets ALL FOUR calls. What an amazing coincidence! [Yes, they are the top team in the league. But I did not see similar treatment yesterday for the (then) top team on the women's side.] If any of the three calls that mattered go our way, we win the game without the drama, so I guess I should be glad they all went against us.

It happens year after year with UCLA. When was the game in Pauley with no call on an obvious end of game foul by UCLA, then a call on less contact on the other end of the floor? I had the prints of those two situations in my desk for a while, IIRC, but I don't have them anymore.

Of course, it does not matter. Our kids overcame the end of game officiating. But don't ever tell me that officiating never has an effect. Basketball officiating is a difficult job that is often done very badly. [By the way, if you are a person who believes no attention should be paid to officiating and no criticism should be directed to them, I highly recommend that you stay that way! I wish I still thought officiating was fair. It makes watching games a lot more fun. Once you start noticing the effect of officiating, it takes some of the fun out of watching sports. It is one of the nice things about watching golf, though. No real effect of officials in that game.]

What really matters is that the end of game officiating made this an even more gutsy win by the good guys. If we are honest, all of us have had our frustrations with the men's team for things like trips to the mountains. But to be down three starters and win that game is really something. That was GUTSY! [Other parts of the anatomy come to mind, but I will leave it as "gutsy."]

Go Stanford!