I'm with you up to "counting on that foul being called (if that's what Baylor did) was a bad strategy." I don't think that was their strategy. I think the play broke down, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. And the refs did their best too. It was a great close game. No villains, no victims.
WBB: NCAA TOURNEY (AZ vs UCONN)
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2021, 12:13 AM by CompSci87.)
I'm with you up to "counting on that foul being called (if that's what Baylor did) was a bad strategy." I don't think that was their strategy. I think the play broke down, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. And the refs did their best too. It was a great close game. No villains, no victims.
03-30-2021, 12:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2021, 12:24 AM by BostonCard.)
By the way, if anyone wants to re-live the play, you can watch it here:
https://youtu.be/CRpv9YrXNuY?t=674
A foul, if it had been called (correctly) would have bailed Carrington out. She drove into a well positioned double team, and had the UConn defenders maintained a vertical position (I hate the term "verticality") it would have been a near impossible shot for the 5'10" Carrington to pull off. Also, had she been able to pass to the low post position (which would have been tough), her teammate was sitting all alone under the basket and would have had an uncontested lay-in.
BC
I agree, and that's all I was trying to say. I will say that the screen was set for Carrington at the top of the key, but Nelson-Ododa (UConn #20) switched perfectly, and for a 6'5" forward, did a nice job keeping up with the smaller, quicker Carrington. I am sure that Baylor liked the match-up, but was hoping that Carrington would be able to blow by a bigger, slower, switch defender. Had she had more time, Carrington would have probably dribbled out and reset, but as you put it, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. I agree; no villains, no victims.
BC
https://youtu.be/CRpv9YrXNuY?t=674
A foul, if it had been called (correctly) would have bailed Carrington out. She drove into a well positioned double team, and had the UConn defenders maintained a vertical position (I hate the term "verticality") it would have been a near impossible shot for the 5'10" Carrington to pull off. Also, had she been able to pass to the low post position (which would have been tough), her teammate was sitting all alone under the basket and would have had an uncontested lay-in.
BC
(03-30-2021, 12:11 AM)CompSci87 Wrote: I'm with you up to "counting on that foul being called (if that's what Baylor did) was a bad strategy." I don't think that was their strategy. I think the play broke down, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. And the refs did their best too. It was a great close game. No villains, no victims.
I agree, and that's all I was trying to say. I will say that the screen was set for Carrington at the top of the key, but Nelson-Ododa (UConn #20) switched perfectly, and for a 6'5" forward, did a nice job keeping up with the smaller, quicker Carrington. I am sure that Baylor liked the match-up, but was hoping that Carrington would be able to blow by a bigger, slower, switch defender. Had she had more time, Carrington would have probably dribbled out and reset, but as you put it, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. I agree; no villains, no victims.
BC
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2021, 12:24 AM by BostonCard.)
By the way, if anyone wants to re-live the play, you can watch it here:
https://youtu.be/CRpv9YrXNuY?t=674
A foul, if it had been called (correctly) would have bailed Carrington out. She drove into a well positioned double team, and had the UConn defenders maintained a vertical position (I hate the term "verticality") it would have been a near impossible shot for the 5'10" Carrington to pull off. Also, had she been able to pass to the low post position (which would have been tough), her teammate was sitting all alone under the basket and would have had an uncontested lay-in.
BC
I agree, and that's all I was trying to say. I will say that the screen was set for Carrington at the top of the key, but Nelson-Ododa (UConn #20) switched perfectly, and for a 6'5" forward, did a nice job keeping up with the smaller, quicker Carrington. I am sure that Baylor liked the match-up, but was hoping that Carrington would be able to blow by a bigger, slower, switch defender. Had she had more time, Carrington would have probably dribbled out and reset, but as you put it, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. I agree; no villains, no victims.
BC
https://youtu.be/CRpv9YrXNuY?t=674
A foul, if it had been called (correctly) would have bailed Carrington out. She drove into a well positioned double team, and had the UConn defenders maintained a vertical position (I hate the term "verticality") it would have been a near impossible shot for the 5'10" Carrington to pull off. Also, had she been able to pass to the low post position (which would have been tough), her teammate was sitting all alone under the basket and would have had an uncontested lay-in.
BC
(03-30-2021, 12:11 AM)CompSci87 Wrote: I'm with you up to "counting on that foul being called (if that's what Baylor did) was a bad strategy." I don't think that was their strategy. I think the play broke down, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. And the refs did their best too. It was a great close game. No villains, no victims.
I agree, and that's all I was trying to say. I will say that the screen was set for Carrington at the top of the key, but Nelson-Ododa (UConn #20) switched perfectly, and for a 6'5" forward, did a nice job keeping up with the smaller, quicker Carrington. I am sure that Baylor liked the match-up, but was hoping that Carrington would be able to blow by a bigger, slower, switch defender. Had she had more time, Carrington would have probably dribbled out and reset, but as you put it, the clock was running, and Carrington did the best she thought she could. I agree; no villains, no victims.
BC
03-30-2021, 04:21 AM
One of the analysts and camera angles shows Nelson-Ododa grabbing D's arm as she came around the screen well before the shot. The third foul on the play.
And on review, D was not dribbling into a well-placed screen. Both Nelson-Ododa and Aliyah Edwards were moving fast to set up the screen and could not stop their momentum which is why they fouled her.
So the benefit of repeatedly watching the play shows that D was triply fouled.
But refs in this game, and all tournament, have let players clobber each other repeatedly, so the call was not too far out of character with the bad job they have usually been doing. I just hope they let Cam do what Nelson-Ododa and Edwards were allowed to do.
And on review, D was not dribbling into a well-placed screen. Both Nelson-Ododa and Aliyah Edwards were moving fast to set up the screen and could not stop their momentum which is why they fouled her.
So the benefit of repeatedly watching the play shows that D was triply fouled.
But refs in this game, and all tournament, have let players clobber each other repeatedly, so the call was not too far out of character with the bad job they have usually been doing. I just hope they let Cam do what Nelson-Ododa and Edwards were allowed to do.
One of the analysts and camera angles shows Nelson-Ododa grabbing D's arm as she came around the screen well before the shot. The third foul on the play.
And on review, D was not dribbling into a well-placed screen. Both Nelson-Ododa and Aliyah Edwards were moving fast to set up the screen and could not stop their momentum which is why they fouled her.
So the benefit of repeatedly watching the play shows that D was triply fouled.
But refs in this game, and all tournament, have let players clobber each other repeatedly, so the call was not too far out of character with the bad job they have usually been doing. I just hope they let Cam do what Nelson-Ododa and Edwards were allowed to do.
And on review, D was not dribbling into a well-placed screen. Both Nelson-Ododa and Aliyah Edwards were moving fast to set up the screen and could not stop their momentum which is why they fouled her.
So the benefit of repeatedly watching the play shows that D was triply fouled.
But refs in this game, and all tournament, have let players clobber each other repeatedly, so the call was not too far out of character with the bad job they have usually been doing. I just hope they let Cam do what Nelson-Ododa and Edwards were allowed to do.
03-30-2021, 08:00 AM
No villains?
I guess that depends upon your definition of "villain." There were people in striped shirts that blew the call. They did not enforce the rules of the game. It is their job to enforce the rules of the game.
If you don't like the word "villain," let's use different words: The people in the striped shirts were in the wrong here. Frankly, that point does not seem reasonably arguable to me.
Please don't give me this "the officials don't want to decide the outcome at the end of the game" baloney. When officials allow one team to clearly violate the rules of the game without sanction (and pretty much everyone, at least everyone on this board, agrees that this occurred), those officials, who are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, ARE DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.
I am a Stanford fan. I remember an official's use of a whistle on a play that, in many other circumstances, would not have resulted in whistle because "officials don't want to decide the outcome of the game," against LSU (unless my memory has faded). If the concept is that whistles are supposed to be swallowed at the end of the game (a concept that I do not agree with, but has been argued here and elsewhere), how did that call make any sense?
It is true, as others have noted, that there is a high degree of subjectivity in officiating in basketball. That is an inherent flaw in the game. I use the term "inherent" because I don't see how that can be removed from the game. The players are fouling each other pretty much all the time, so someone has to decide which fouls are flagrant enough to call. The players are often traveling, in the lane more than three seconds, palming the ball, double dribbling, using their off hand to push off, etc. I don't see a technological substitute in basketball for the humans who decide which of these infractions to call. [But, really, how can pushing off with the off hand be a foul 18% of the time? It seems to me that it either should be a foul or it shouldn't be.]
But, even accepting that there is room for subjectivity, folks that was rather clearly a foul. Actually, two fouls. No argument can be made for vertical position, as both players are not vertical. One hits the shooter IN THE FACE, for heaven's sake.
The officials are clearly at fault here, regardless of whether you want to use the term "villains."
And here's the rub, at least for me: No, it does not "even out over time." UConn gets far more than its share of the benefit of these errors by basketball officials (just like they did last time the Final Four was in San Antonio, to get them back into a game Stanford was dominating in the first half--and it worked). Just like _._._. does in football. And the SEC does every time the NCAA fills out a bracket, in pretty much every sport.
Yes, basketball is inherently flawed because it has a level of subjectivity that cannot be eliminated. But that does not mean that fans have to accept it when it happens.
Whenever a situation like this--i.e,. when officiating errors have a major influence on the outcome of the game--someone chimes in to say the players and coaches should have done something different. It is, of course, always true that the team that was robbed would not have been in a position to get robbed if it had been further ahead. But sometimes the game is close. Maybe in hindsight the player that got fouled twice (or, arguably, three times) should have passed the ball. But she didn't. She has the right to make the play she made and to have the rules of the game enforced when she makes that play. She got robbed.
To be clear, I HATE Baylor. That university has a horrible history of dark stories in its sports programs. And its women's basketball team has a history of benefiting from the "now its the tournament so we are going to change the way games are called" officiating over the years. I cry no crocodile tears for Baylor, as I have not one once of affection for that university and its sports teams.
I have a family connection to UConn. Admittedly, I am not a fan of UConn women's basketball. But if was forced to decide between UConn and Baylor, I would pick UConn. I own UConn sports apparel, as someone I love goes to school there. I surely do not own any Baylor apparel.
As a Stanford fan, I am not even sure which team I wanted to win this game. [My team is still in the hunt, at least for the rest of the day. While that is the case, all I really care about is how this affects Stanford, and I cannot figure out, under that standard, who I wanted to win this game.]
But the officials blew the call. Rather clearly, in my opinion.
The criticism should be directed primarily to them, IMO.
I guess that depends upon your definition of "villain." There were people in striped shirts that blew the call. They did not enforce the rules of the game. It is their job to enforce the rules of the game.
If you don't like the word "villain," let's use different words: The people in the striped shirts were in the wrong here. Frankly, that point does not seem reasonably arguable to me.
Please don't give me this "the officials don't want to decide the outcome at the end of the game" baloney. When officials allow one team to clearly violate the rules of the game without sanction (and pretty much everyone, at least everyone on this board, agrees that this occurred), those officials, who are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, ARE DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.
I am a Stanford fan. I remember an official's use of a whistle on a play that, in many other circumstances, would not have resulted in whistle because "officials don't want to decide the outcome of the game," against LSU (unless my memory has faded). If the concept is that whistles are supposed to be swallowed at the end of the game (a concept that I do not agree with, but has been argued here and elsewhere), how did that call make any sense?
It is true, as others have noted, that there is a high degree of subjectivity in officiating in basketball. That is an inherent flaw in the game. I use the term "inherent" because I don't see how that can be removed from the game. The players are fouling each other pretty much all the time, so someone has to decide which fouls are flagrant enough to call. The players are often traveling, in the lane more than three seconds, palming the ball, double dribbling, using their off hand to push off, etc. I don't see a technological substitute in basketball for the humans who decide which of these infractions to call. [But, really, how can pushing off with the off hand be a foul 18% of the time? It seems to me that it either should be a foul or it shouldn't be.]
But, even accepting that there is room for subjectivity, folks that was rather clearly a foul. Actually, two fouls. No argument can be made for vertical position, as both players are not vertical. One hits the shooter IN THE FACE, for heaven's sake.
The officials are clearly at fault here, regardless of whether you want to use the term "villains."
And here's the rub, at least for me: No, it does not "even out over time." UConn gets far more than its share of the benefit of these errors by basketball officials (just like they did last time the Final Four was in San Antonio, to get them back into a game Stanford was dominating in the first half--and it worked). Just like _._._. does in football. And the SEC does every time the NCAA fills out a bracket, in pretty much every sport.
Yes, basketball is inherently flawed because it has a level of subjectivity that cannot be eliminated. But that does not mean that fans have to accept it when it happens.
Whenever a situation like this--i.e,. when officiating errors have a major influence on the outcome of the game--someone chimes in to say the players and coaches should have done something different. It is, of course, always true that the team that was robbed would not have been in a position to get robbed if it had been further ahead. But sometimes the game is close. Maybe in hindsight the player that got fouled twice (or, arguably, three times) should have passed the ball. But she didn't. She has the right to make the play she made and to have the rules of the game enforced when she makes that play. She got robbed.
To be clear, I HATE Baylor. That university has a horrible history of dark stories in its sports programs. And its women's basketball team has a history of benefiting from the "now its the tournament so we are going to change the way games are called" officiating over the years. I cry no crocodile tears for Baylor, as I have not one once of affection for that university and its sports teams.
I have a family connection to UConn. Admittedly, I am not a fan of UConn women's basketball. But if was forced to decide between UConn and Baylor, I would pick UConn. I own UConn sports apparel, as someone I love goes to school there. I surely do not own any Baylor apparel.
As a Stanford fan, I am not even sure which team I wanted to win this game. [My team is still in the hunt, at least for the rest of the day. While that is the case, all I really care about is how this affects Stanford, and I cannot figure out, under that standard, who I wanted to win this game.]
But the officials blew the call. Rather clearly, in my opinion.
The criticism should be directed primarily to them, IMO.
No villains?
I guess that depends upon your definition of "villain." There were people in striped shirts that blew the call. They did not enforce the rules of the game. It is their job to enforce the rules of the game.
If you don't like the word "villain," let's use different words: The people in the striped shirts were in the wrong here. Frankly, that point does not seem reasonably arguable to me.
Please don't give me this "the officials don't want to decide the outcome at the end of the game" baloney. When officials allow one team to clearly violate the rules of the game without sanction (and pretty much everyone, at least everyone on this board, agrees that this occurred), those officials, who are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, ARE DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.
I am a Stanford fan. I remember an official's use of a whistle on a play that, in many other circumstances, would not have resulted in whistle because "officials don't want to decide the outcome of the game," against LSU (unless my memory has faded). If the concept is that whistles are supposed to be swallowed at the end of the game (a concept that I do not agree with, but has been argued here and elsewhere), how did that call make any sense?
It is true, as others have noted, that there is a high degree of subjectivity in officiating in basketball. That is an inherent flaw in the game. I use the term "inherent" because I don't see how that can be removed from the game. The players are fouling each other pretty much all the time, so someone has to decide which fouls are flagrant enough to call. The players are often traveling, in the lane more than three seconds, palming the ball, double dribbling, using their off hand to push off, etc. I don't see a technological substitute in basketball for the humans who decide which of these infractions to call. [But, really, how can pushing off with the off hand be a foul 18% of the time? It seems to me that it either should be a foul or it shouldn't be.]
But, even accepting that there is room for subjectivity, folks that was rather clearly a foul. Actually, two fouls. No argument can be made for vertical position, as both players are not vertical. One hits the shooter IN THE FACE, for heaven's sake.
The officials are clearly at fault here, regardless of whether you want to use the term "villains."
And here's the rub, at least for me: No, it does not "even out over time." UConn gets far more than its share of the benefit of these errors by basketball officials (just like they did last time the Final Four was in San Antonio, to get them back into a game Stanford was dominating in the first half--and it worked). Just like _._._. does in football. And the SEC does every time the NCAA fills out a bracket, in pretty much every sport.
Yes, basketball is inherently flawed because it has a level of subjectivity that cannot be eliminated. But that does not mean that fans have to accept it when it happens.
Whenever a situation like this--i.e,. when officiating errors have a major influence on the outcome of the game--someone chimes in to say the players and coaches should have done something different. It is, of course, always true that the team that was robbed would not have been in a position to get robbed if it had been further ahead. But sometimes the game is close. Maybe in hindsight the player that got fouled twice (or, arguably, three times) should have passed the ball. But she didn't. She has the right to make the play she made and to have the rules of the game enforced when she makes that play. She got robbed.
To be clear, I HATE Baylor. That university has a horrible history of dark stories in its sports programs. And its women's basketball team has a history of benefiting from the "now its the tournament so we are going to change the way games are called" officiating over the years. I cry no crocodile tears for Baylor, as I have not one once of affection for that university and its sports teams.
I have a family connection to UConn. Admittedly, I am not a fan of UConn women's basketball. But if was forced to decide between UConn and Baylor, I would pick UConn. I own UConn sports apparel, as someone I love goes to school there. I surely do not own any Baylor apparel.
As a Stanford fan, I am not even sure which team I wanted to win this game. [My team is still in the hunt, at least for the rest of the day. While that is the case, all I really care about is how this affects Stanford, and I cannot figure out, under that standard, who I wanted to win this game.]
But the officials blew the call. Rather clearly, in my opinion.
The criticism should be directed primarily to them, IMO.
I guess that depends upon your definition of "villain." There were people in striped shirts that blew the call. They did not enforce the rules of the game. It is their job to enforce the rules of the game.
If you don't like the word "villain," let's use different words: The people in the striped shirts were in the wrong here. Frankly, that point does not seem reasonably arguable to me.
Please don't give me this "the officials don't want to decide the outcome at the end of the game" baloney. When officials allow one team to clearly violate the rules of the game without sanction (and pretty much everyone, at least everyone on this board, agrees that this occurred), those officials, who are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, ARE DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.
I am a Stanford fan. I remember an official's use of a whistle on a play that, in many other circumstances, would not have resulted in whistle because "officials don't want to decide the outcome of the game," against LSU (unless my memory has faded). If the concept is that whistles are supposed to be swallowed at the end of the game (a concept that I do not agree with, but has been argued here and elsewhere), how did that call make any sense?
It is true, as others have noted, that there is a high degree of subjectivity in officiating in basketball. That is an inherent flaw in the game. I use the term "inherent" because I don't see how that can be removed from the game. The players are fouling each other pretty much all the time, so someone has to decide which fouls are flagrant enough to call. The players are often traveling, in the lane more than three seconds, palming the ball, double dribbling, using their off hand to push off, etc. I don't see a technological substitute in basketball for the humans who decide which of these infractions to call. [But, really, how can pushing off with the off hand be a foul 18% of the time? It seems to me that it either should be a foul or it shouldn't be.]
But, even accepting that there is room for subjectivity, folks that was rather clearly a foul. Actually, two fouls. No argument can be made for vertical position, as both players are not vertical. One hits the shooter IN THE FACE, for heaven's sake.
The officials are clearly at fault here, regardless of whether you want to use the term "villains."
And here's the rub, at least for me: No, it does not "even out over time." UConn gets far more than its share of the benefit of these errors by basketball officials (just like they did last time the Final Four was in San Antonio, to get them back into a game Stanford was dominating in the first half--and it worked). Just like _._._. does in football. And the SEC does every time the NCAA fills out a bracket, in pretty much every sport.
Yes, basketball is inherently flawed because it has a level of subjectivity that cannot be eliminated. But that does not mean that fans have to accept it when it happens.
Whenever a situation like this--i.e,. when officiating errors have a major influence on the outcome of the game--someone chimes in to say the players and coaches should have done something different. It is, of course, always true that the team that was robbed would not have been in a position to get robbed if it had been further ahead. But sometimes the game is close. Maybe in hindsight the player that got fouled twice (or, arguably, three times) should have passed the ball. But she didn't. She has the right to make the play she made and to have the rules of the game enforced when she makes that play. She got robbed.
To be clear, I HATE Baylor. That university has a horrible history of dark stories in its sports programs. And its women's basketball team has a history of benefiting from the "now its the tournament so we are going to change the way games are called" officiating over the years. I cry no crocodile tears for Baylor, as I have not one once of affection for that university and its sports teams.
I have a family connection to UConn. Admittedly, I am not a fan of UConn women's basketball. But if was forced to decide between UConn and Baylor, I would pick UConn. I own UConn sports apparel, as someone I love goes to school there. I surely do not own any Baylor apparel.
As a Stanford fan, I am not even sure which team I wanted to win this game. [My team is still in the hunt, at least for the rest of the day. While that is the case, all I really care about is how this affects Stanford, and I cannot figure out, under that standard, who I wanted to win this game.]
But the officials blew the call. Rather clearly, in my opinion.
The criticism should be directed primarily to them, IMO.
03-30-2021, 09:53 AM
i am not a fan of baylor, but i am a fan of dijonai even after she left us.
(what a dominant team we would have if she had stayed!)
(what a dominant team we would have if she had stayed!)
03-30-2021, 10:30 AM
(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
03-30-2021, 10:44 AM
(03-30-2021, 10:30 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
You're probably right. I expect that Uconn gets away with it and then we get nailed, perhaps even unfairly. Seems to be the history and we know where ESPN resides.....
(03-30-2021, 10:30 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
You're probably right. I expect that Uconn gets away with it and then we get nailed, perhaps even unfairly. Seems to be the history and we know where ESPN resides.....
03-30-2021, 01:32 PM
(03-30-2021, 10:44 AM)treetop11 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 10:30 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
You're probably right. I expect that Uconn gets away with it and then we get nailed, perhaps even unfairly. Seems to be the history and we know where ESPN resides.....
And we might get Missy tonight. We didn't ref either of the games yesterday.
(03-30-2021, 10:44 AM)treetop11 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 10:30 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
You're probably right. I expect that Uconn gets away with it and then we get nailed, perhaps even unfairly. Seems to be the history and we know where ESPN resides.....
And we might get Missy tonight. We didn't ref either of the games yesterday.
03-30-2021, 01:40 PM
(03-30-2021, 10:44 AM)treetop11 Wrote:Hopefully, if the refs are instructed to call the game more tightly, it will only happen in the closing minutes. During our post-game discussion last night, my wife made the point that, if there are special rules in the final two minutes to determine who touched the ball last, then at least there ought to be an effort to call obvious fouls when the game is on the line in the last minutes of play.(03-30-2021, 10:30 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
You're probably right. I expect that Uconn gets away with it and then we get nailed, perhaps even unfairly. Seems to be the history and we know where ESPN resides.....
(03-30-2021, 10:44 AM)treetop11 Wrote:Hopefully, if the refs are instructed to call the game more tightly, it will only happen in the closing minutes. During our post-game discussion last night, my wife made the point that, if there are special rules in the final two minutes to determine who touched the ball last, then at least there ought to be an effort to call obvious fouls when the game is on the line in the last minutes of play.(03-30-2021, 10:30 AM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-30-2021, 09:55 AM)BobK Wrote: Another great post Blue HawkWith you too Blue Hawk. I am highly confident that whatever post-game assessment the referees get will reveal their errors. Geno's daughter tweeted it was a foul. Hard to see how she has a Baylor bias.
The game was in Baylor's control right until their key player got hurt. They were rollin' at that point and then it all fell apart. I honestly doubted that Baylor player would have been 100% on Friday, so after that injury I really wanted Baylor to win because Baylor did not look like a deep team to me.
UConn was lucky that injury happened.
UConn was lucky the fouls on that last play were not called.
I hope UConn is not as lucky this upcoming weekend.
FWIW - I do worry that a few Stanford players that are a bit physical in the paint may become victims of tighter calls tonight. I can easily imagine that the let the play approach we have seen to date in that tournament will now disappear.
You're probably right. I expect that Uconn gets away with it and then we get nailed, perhaps even unfairly. Seems to be the history and we know where ESPN resides.....
03-30-2021, 02:23 PM
You can play the game as if it were the platonic ideal of how basketball ought to be called based on the rules of the game as they are printed in the rulebook or you can play the game as it is called in real life, where refs are human, calls get missed, and, especially late in a tight game, refs are less likely to call fouls because of a well-described bias towards ostensibly not letting the game be decided by the refs. Yes, I totally get that a decision not to call a foul is just as much of the refs influencing the game as the refs blowing a whistle, but this is a well-known human bias.
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
You can play the game as if it were the platonic ideal of how basketball ought to be called based on the rules of the game as they are printed in the rulebook or you can play the game as it is called in real life, where refs are human, calls get missed, and, especially late in a tight game, refs are less likely to call fouls because of a well-described bias towards ostensibly not letting the game be decided by the refs. Yes, I totally get that a decision not to call a foul is just as much of the refs influencing the game as the refs blowing a whistle, but this is a well-known human bias.
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
03-30-2021, 04:00 PM
Far be it for me to quote Geno, but this is correct:
Other than using the ghastly expression "it is what it is", he is right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/sport...-foul.html (may be behind a paywall)
BC
Quote:"We probably fouled a number of times during the game and we didn't get called for it," Auriemma said. "They probably fouled a number of times during the game and didn't get called for it. We got free throws because of nonfouls. You could go back and forth through the whole thing.
"The bottom line is the officials did what they're going to do. And if they would have said it was a foul, I would be on the other end going, `You can't make that call and make that call a foul.' So it is what it is.
"I'm not going to sit here and apologize for it. And if people are going to want to talk about that the rest of the week, you're welcome to do that. It's not going to change the outcome."
Other than using the ghastly expression "it is what it is", he is right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/sport...-foul.html (may be behind a paywall)
BC
Far be it for me to quote Geno, but this is correct:
Other than using the ghastly expression "it is what it is", he is right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/sport...-foul.html (may be behind a paywall)
BC
Quote:"We probably fouled a number of times during the game and we didn't get called for it," Auriemma said. "They probably fouled a number of times during the game and didn't get called for it. We got free throws because of nonfouls. You could go back and forth through the whole thing.
"The bottom line is the officials did what they're going to do. And if they would have said it was a foul, I would be on the other end going, `You can't make that call and make that call a foul.' So it is what it is.
"I'm not going to sit here and apologize for it. And if people are going to want to talk about that the rest of the week, you're welcome to do that. It's not going to change the outcome."
Other than using the ghastly expression "it is what it is", he is right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/sport...-foul.html (may be behind a paywall)
BC
03-30-2021, 04:09 PM
I can see a rule in the NCAA tourney that allows the refs to video review potential fouls or called fouls in the last 60 seconds of play if the game is close (say 10 points or less). Given that these tourney games are win or go home, such a rule would help prevent injustices like we say here.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
I can see a rule in the NCAA tourney that allows the refs to video review potential fouls or called fouls in the last 60 seconds of play if the game is close (say 10 points or less). Given that these tourney games are win or go home, such a rule would help prevent injustices like we say here.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
03-30-2021, 04:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2021, 04:29 PM by Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card.)
(03-30-2021, 02:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You can play the game as if it were the platonic ideal of how basketball ought to be called based on the rules of the game as they are printed in the rulebook or you can play the game as it is called in real life, where refs are human, calls get missed, and, especially late in a tight game, refs are less likely to call fouls because of a well-described bias towards ostensibly not letting the game be decided by the refs. Yes, I totally get that a decision not to call a foul is just as much of the refs influencing the game as the refs blowing a whistle, but this is a well-known human bias.
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
On some things, BC, we agree. Yes, the game is far from a platonic ideal. Indeed, my post stated that the game of basketball has a fundamental flaw in that it relies, and probably has to rely, on human subjectivity.
But I do not agree that this was a call that is not made at the end of the game. This was not a single foul by a single player. It was two fouls by two players. One was a hit to the face. Hits to the face get called. [Indeed, in a recent game, an inadvertent hit to the face by Brink resulted in a flagrant foul call against her. Admittedly, it was not at the end of the game, but how can something that is a flagrant foul in the middle of the game not even be a simple foul at the end of the game?]
And it is simply not correct that there are never foul calls in the last seconds of a game. If you are a basketball fan, you have seen the situation of a player with free throws with little or no time left on the clock, sometimes to win the game or put it into overtime. How does that happen if there are no fouls called at the end of the game? How does Chris Hernandez, one of my favorite Stanford athletes of all time, get the chance to make three free throws to send a game into overtime if fouls are not called at the end of the game? I don't remember what that foul looked like, but I have a hard time believing it was more egregious than the two simultaneous fouls on Carrington last night.
And how does LSU get a foul called that sends it to the Final Four? Maybe my memory is off on that one, but I think it was a no ball charge call after a pass. THAT is more egregious than what happened to Carrington last night?
Fouls do get called in the last seconds of the game. If some fouls get called, what happened last night should have qualified.
I get tired of people second guessing the players in a game that requires split second decisions, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. If the zebras had made the call they should have made, which was by no means at the fringes of what constitutes a foul, the talk would have been, "What a gutsy move by Carrington. She absolutely willed Baylor to the Final Four." Instead, now that we get to see that her play did not work, due to a neglect of duty by those who have the responsibility to enforce the rules. we blame her for the result. Comes with the territory, I guess, but the real blame, in my book, goes to those who refused to enforce the rules.
If that is not a foul, what is? The only issue, within the body of how fouls are called, is which UConn player gets the foul when both have earned it.
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2021, 04:29 PM by Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card.)
(03-30-2021, 02:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You can play the game as if it were the platonic ideal of how basketball ought to be called based on the rules of the game as they are printed in the rulebook or you can play the game as it is called in real life, where refs are human, calls get missed, and, especially late in a tight game, refs are less likely to call fouls because of a well-described bias towards ostensibly not letting the game be decided by the refs. Yes, I totally get that a decision not to call a foul is just as much of the refs influencing the game as the refs blowing a whistle, but this is a well-known human bias.
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
On some things, BC, we agree. Yes, the game is far from a platonic ideal. Indeed, my post stated that the game of basketball has a fundamental flaw in that it relies, and probably has to rely, on human subjectivity.
But I do not agree that this was a call that is not made at the end of the game. This was not a single foul by a single player. It was two fouls by two players. One was a hit to the face. Hits to the face get called. [Indeed, in a recent game, an inadvertent hit to the face by Brink resulted in a flagrant foul call against her. Admittedly, it was not at the end of the game, but how can something that is a flagrant foul in the middle of the game not even be a simple foul at the end of the game?]
And it is simply not correct that there are never foul calls in the last seconds of a game. If you are a basketball fan, you have seen the situation of a player with free throws with little or no time left on the clock, sometimes to win the game or put it into overtime. How does that happen if there are no fouls called at the end of the game? How does Chris Hernandez, one of my favorite Stanford athletes of all time, get the chance to make three free throws to send a game into overtime if fouls are not called at the end of the game? I don't remember what that foul looked like, but I have a hard time believing it was more egregious than the two simultaneous fouls on Carrington last night.
And how does LSU get a foul called that sends it to the Final Four? Maybe my memory is off on that one, but I think it was a no ball charge call after a pass. THAT is more egregious than what happened to Carrington last night?
Fouls do get called in the last seconds of the game. If some fouls get called, what happened last night should have qualified.
I get tired of people second guessing the players in a game that requires split second decisions, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. If the zebras had made the call they should have made, which was by no means at the fringes of what constitutes a foul, the talk would have been, "What a gutsy move by Carrington. She absolutely willed Baylor to the Final Four." Instead, now that we get to see that her play did not work, due to a neglect of duty by those who have the responsibility to enforce the rules. we blame her for the result. Comes with the territory, I guess, but the real blame, in my book, goes to those who refused to enforce the rules.
If that is not a foul, what is? The only issue, within the body of how fouls are called, is which UConn player gets the foul when both have earned it.
03-30-2021, 04:48 PM
(03-30-2021, 04:28 PM)Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card Wrote:(03-30-2021, 02:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You can play the game as if it were the platonic ideal of how basketball ought to be called based on the rules of the game as they are printed in the rulebook or you can play the game as it is called in real life, where refs are human, calls get missed, and, especially late in a tight game, refs are less likely to call fouls because of a well-described bias towards ostensibly not letting the game be decided by the refs. Yes, I totally get that a decision not to call a foul is just as much of the refs influencing the game as the refs blowing a whistle, but this is a well-known human bias.
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
On some things, BC, we agree. Yes, the game is far from a platonic ideal. Indeed, my post stated that the game of basketball has a fundamental flaw in that it relies, and probably has to rely, on human subjectivity.
But I do not agree that this was a call that is not made at the end of the game. This was not a single foul by a single player. It was two fouls by two players. One was a hit to the face. Hits to the face get called. [Indeed, in a recent game, an inadvertent hit to the face by Brink resulted in a flagrant foul call against her. Admittedly, it was not at the end of the game, but how can something that is a flagrant foul in the middle of the game not even be a simple foul at the end of the game?]
And it is simply not correct that there are never foul calls in the last seconds of a game. If you are a basketball fan, you have seen the situation of a player with free throws with little or no time left on the clock, sometimes to win the game or put it into overtime. How does that happen if there are no fouls called at the end of the game? How does Chris Hernandez, one of my favorite Stanford athletes of all time, get the chance to make three free throws to send a game into overtime if fouls are not called at the end of the game? I don't remember what that foul looked like, but I have a hard time believing it was more egregious than the two simultaneous fouls on Carrington last night.
And how does LSU get a foul called that sends it to the Final Four? Maybe my memory is off on that one, but I think it was a no ball charge call after a pass. THAT is more egregious than what happened to Carrington last night?
Fouls do get called in the last seconds of the game. If some fouls get called, what happened last night should have qualified.
I get tired of people second guessing the players in a game that requires split second decisions, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. If the zebras had made the call they should have made, which was by no means at the fringes of what constitutes a foul, the talk would have been, "What a gutsy move by Carrington. She absolutely willed Baylor to the Final Four." Instead, now that we get to see that her play did not work, due to a neglect of duty by those who have the responsibility to enforce the rules. we blame her for the result. Comes with the territory, I guess, but the real blame, in my book, goes to those who refused to enforce the rules.
If that is not a foul, what is? The only issue, within the body of how fouls are called, is which UConn player gets the foul when both have earned it.
Well said!!!
(03-30-2021, 04:28 PM)Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card Wrote:(03-30-2021, 02:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You can play the game as if it were the platonic ideal of how basketball ought to be called based on the rules of the game as they are printed in the rulebook or you can play the game as it is called in real life, where refs are human, calls get missed, and, especially late in a tight game, refs are less likely to call fouls because of a well-described bias towards ostensibly not letting the game be decided by the refs. Yes, I totally get that a decision not to call a foul is just as much of the refs influencing the game as the refs blowing a whistle, but this is a well-known human bias.
The question is not whether the play was a foul according to the rulebook; I think we all agree it was. The question is whether that is a foul that refs will typically call, and I don't think so. Moreover, this was not a tightly called game; the refs were letting fouls go all game long, including some uncalled fouls against Baylor. There are two things that I think people can legitimately be upset over. First is if the reffing is consistently benefiting one team or another, and I thought, as a whole, it was pretty fair. Second is if the reffing is inconsistent and a play that is called one way early in the game is not called later in the game. Again, by and large, I thought the refs were letting a lot fly all game long.
So, yes, it was a blown call. But no, it should not have been a surprise that it was a blown call.
BC
On some things, BC, we agree. Yes, the game is far from a platonic ideal. Indeed, my post stated that the game of basketball has a fundamental flaw in that it relies, and probably has to rely, on human subjectivity.
But I do not agree that this was a call that is not made at the end of the game. This was not a single foul by a single player. It was two fouls by two players. One was a hit to the face. Hits to the face get called. [Indeed, in a recent game, an inadvertent hit to the face by Brink resulted in a flagrant foul call against her. Admittedly, it was not at the end of the game, but how can something that is a flagrant foul in the middle of the game not even be a simple foul at the end of the game?]
And it is simply not correct that there are never foul calls in the last seconds of a game. If you are a basketball fan, you have seen the situation of a player with free throws with little or no time left on the clock, sometimes to win the game or put it into overtime. How does that happen if there are no fouls called at the end of the game? How does Chris Hernandez, one of my favorite Stanford athletes of all time, get the chance to make three free throws to send a game into overtime if fouls are not called at the end of the game? I don't remember what that foul looked like, but I have a hard time believing it was more egregious than the two simultaneous fouls on Carrington last night.
And how does LSU get a foul called that sends it to the Final Four? Maybe my memory is off on that one, but I think it was a no ball charge call after a pass. THAT is more egregious than what happened to Carrington last night?
Fouls do get called in the last seconds of the game. If some fouls get called, what happened last night should have qualified.
I get tired of people second guessing the players in a game that requires split second decisions, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. If the zebras had made the call they should have made, which was by no means at the fringes of what constitutes a foul, the talk would have been, "What a gutsy move by Carrington. She absolutely willed Baylor to the Final Four." Instead, now that we get to see that her play did not work, due to a neglect of duty by those who have the responsibility to enforce the rules. we blame her for the result. Comes with the territory, I guess, but the real blame, in my book, goes to those who refused to enforce the rules.
If that is not a foul, what is? The only issue, within the body of how fouls are called, is which UConn player gets the foul when both have earned it.
Well said!!!
South Carolina did not look particularly good the last time I watched them, but they look superb tonight. Suffocating defense--although Texas is challenged that way--but their little guard Cooke is a fabulous slasher, Amihere is coming on strong in the second half, and Boston is big and skilled.
With 2 minutes left Texas has not scored in the fourth quarter, and the coaches are sending in the subs.
It is a South Carolina win, a 62-34 absolute drubbing. 14 blocks, and they outrebounded Texas 47-33, held Texas to 23% shooting, held Collier to 2 baskets and 4 points for the whole game. Collier torched us last year. Good thing I am only a fan, since we need our team to be focused on Louisville.
With 2 minutes left Texas has not scored in the fourth quarter, and the coaches are sending in the subs.
It is a South Carolina win, a 62-34 absolute drubbing. 14 blocks, and they outrebounded Texas 47-33, held Texas to 23% shooting, held Collier to 2 baskets and 4 points for the whole game. Collier torched us last year. Good thing I am only a fan, since we need our team to be focused on Louisville.
South Carolina did not look particularly good the last time I watched them, but they look superb tonight. Suffocating defense--although Texas is challenged that way--but their little guard Cooke is a fabulous slasher, Amihere is coming on strong in the second half, and Boston is big and skilled.
With 2 minutes left Texas has not scored in the fourth quarter, and the coaches are sending in the subs.
It is a South Carolina win, a 62-34 absolute drubbing. 14 blocks, and they outrebounded Texas 47-33, held Texas to 23% shooting, held Collier to 2 baskets and 4 points for the whole game. Collier torched us last year. Good thing I am only a fan, since we need our team to be focused on Louisville.
With 2 minutes left Texas has not scored in the fourth quarter, and the coaches are sending in the subs.
It is a South Carolina win, a 62-34 absolute drubbing. 14 blocks, and they outrebounded Texas 47-33, held Texas to 23% shooting, held Collier to 2 baskets and 4 points for the whole game. Collier torched us last year. Good thing I am only a fan, since we need our team to be focused on Louisville.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »