|
Post by BubbleVisionBiff on Feb 12, 2008 16:41:21 GMT -5
What's annoying me now about this call is people saying Reynolds got "mugged" or there was more contact "handfighting" with Rivers. The handfighting actually occurs between Reynolds' forearm and Rivers' chest as Scottie does his classic push off. No way was that a foul on Rivers. The last call was lousy but 'Nova can't complain about the defense on that last play on top of the lousy call. Exactly. Scotty had a handful of Baby Doc's jersey. I sit not too far from there in 111. And there was no doubt there was contact from Stokes on Wallace, but agree with id, Bilas and everyone else who said swallow the whistle.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Feb 12, 2008 17:02:23 GMT -5
if i am mistaken this has happened to us in the past... i cried at a game in pittsburgh once on a last second call that decided the game. Update: Found the game... www.hoyasaxa.com/sports/archives/archive0103.htm#21Pittsburgh 65, Georgetown 64 1/26/03 All that stood between the Georgetown Hoyas and overtime against the #2 ranked Pittsburgh Panthers was 3.5 seconds...and referee Tim Higgins. Higgins' phantom whistle on a driving Julius Page shot with only four-tenths of a second left allowed Pitt a 65-64 escape from the Hoyas before a sold-out crowd of 12,508 at the Petersen Events Center. The sour finish spoiled a inspired Georgetown effort from start to finish. I had tried to block this game from my memory bank. Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 12, 2008 17:40:44 GMT -5
there was no doubt there was contact from Stokes on Wallace, but agree with id, Bilas and everyone else who said swallow the whistle. +1
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Feb 12, 2008 18:17:16 GMT -5
Well, it's full round-trip tour of the spectrum for me!
At the game live, I looked up at the Jumbotron on the final play after the ball went to the deck b/c I no longer had a clear angle. I saw the foul call on the Jumbotron and was 100% confident it was a foul. Spent the next 2 minutes telling JerseyHoya how stupid Stokes was for putting himself in that position.
Came home, saw the replays and found there was much less contact than I had perceived at the game. I even focused more on Stokes trying to matador Wallace. I spent the next few minutes writing about the embarrassment of officiating and how the final call was a poor decision and would ultimately overshadow anything else about this game (most of that is still true ;D )
But here's the important thing. I dug a little deeper. I read the thread on officiating.com, where you get lots of former and current officials weighing in with objective opinions and rules interpretations. Saw the posts about how "displacement" plays into a call in this situation. I went back, watched the play again with that more objective information in hand. Read Art Hyland's comments on ESPN.com, mirrored that same reasoning in his defense of Donato's call.
When you watch the play with that information in hand, there cannot be any doubt why the call was made and that--while controversial--it is correct. How do you know Donato was applying the displacement standard? Look at ZagHoya's photo of the contact--Wallace's left foot is on the court. Donato makes the call simultaneously with the NEXT TIME Wallace's left foot hits the court...and that left foot on the overhead ESPN angle is on the line. Donato takes the split second to confirm that Wallace has been forced out after that initial contact and makes the call that needs to be made. You cannot call nothing there--it's either out of bounds or a foul--Donato knows this b/c he's three feet from the play on that sideline.
Interestingly, Raftery initially brings up whether Wallace was forced out of bounds, but none of the three analysts returns to the issue.
Point is...whining about "you don't make that call in that situation" or "70, 75, 80, 85 feet from the basket" (side note: why can't anyone decide how far away it was?)...none of that has a shred of meat to it. None of that is in the rule book.
Where the controversy comes in is that--to steal some phraseology from soccer--fans were expecting a "spirit of the game" interpretation given Cahill/Hess/Donato's performance the previous 39.9 minutes, and Donato applied a "letter of the law" interpretation to his final call.
Final side note--I guess it's a Rivals.com thing, b/c all the fan sites are sort of linked together in the network and there's an easy drop down menu...but what is the deal with other teams' fans showing up en masse to offer their condolences about someone being screwed by the officials? Just on the front page of Nova's board now there are threads started by a WV fan, Depaul fan, Pitt fan, UK fan, Michigan fan, Temple fan, and THREE Louisville fans. How bout someone over there just consolidate them into one "Crap, we didn't gain a game on GTown in the standings" thread?
|
|
WVHoyasfan
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
GREATEST HOYA EVER!!!!!
Posts: 275
|
Post by WVHoyasfan on Feb 12, 2008 23:43:00 GMT -5
Did anybody watch comcast sportsnight tonight?? If so did you see the sideline view with Wallace running torwards the camra.From that angle it was clearly a foul and I was wondering idf that view was on youtube??
|
|
2ndRyan
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 329
|
Post by 2ndRyan on Feb 13, 2008 0:17:17 GMT -5
At the end of the day, isn't all of this on Stokes? Or perhaps his coaches who should have been screaming for no fouls. Why do you try to cut off a player that far from the basket with that little time left? Reynolds had done his job in trying to get to the basket with only enough time such that if he missed and Georgetown rebounded there was little time for Georgetown to score. Get it into overtime and take your chances When you factor in what should have been some awareness of how the game was being called (ie they're clearly not letting us play based on the number of fouls) it's just a bonehead play. Why does Donato have to bail mindless aggression out?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaAtHeart on Feb 13, 2008 10:12:35 GMT -5
That was BS call to make with .1 seconds left in the game at 70 feet away from the basket. Point blank...
The best thing to do in that situation is not blow your whistle at all and let the game be decided in overtime. I'm glad we got the W but anyone who feel like that call should have been made in those circumstance is viewing it with Gray and Blue colored glasses.
Screw a rule book....if the refs went by the rule book 24/7 the game would be stopped almost on every possesion. Teams would shoot 75 FT's each every game...a ton of stuff would be different. In that situation should be a judgment call by the ref. If Stokes tackles him out of bounds there should be a foul called...but with that minimal contact from that far away with that little time left it's ridiculous to see that foul called.
Everyone here can act like that call was justified but if the tables were turned...you all know you wouldn't be acting like it was a good call.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Feb 13, 2008 10:18:56 GMT -5
That was BS call to make with .1 seconds left in the game at 70 feet away from the basket. Point blank... The best thing to do in that situation is not blow your whistle at all and let the game be decided in overtime. I'm glad we got the W but anyone who feel like that call should have been made in those circumstance is viewing it with Gray and Blue colored glasses. So the ref should ignore Wallace stepping out of bounds too? You don't think Nova fans would be up in arms about that non-call?
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 13, 2008 10:23:00 GMT -5
if i am mistaken this has happened to us in the past... i cried at a game in pittsburgh once on a last second call that decided the game. Update: Found the game... www.hoyasaxa.com/sports/archives/archive0103.htm#21Pittsburgh 65, Georgetown 64 1/26/03 All that stood between the Georgetown Hoyas and overtime against the #2 ranked Pittsburgh Panthers was 3.5 seconds...and referee Tim Higgins. Higgins' phantom whistle on a driving Julius Page shot with only four-tenths of a second left allowed Pitt a 65-64 escape from the Hoyas before a sold-out crowd of 12,508 at the Petersen Events Center. The sour finish spoiled a inspired Georgetown effort from start to finish. I had tried to block this game from my memory bank. Thanks a lot. I second that emotion. I will add, however, that unlike Monday's game, that call in 2003 negated a truly great Hoya comeback. And there was much less contact on Page than there was on Wallace.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaAtHeart on Feb 13, 2008 10:23:58 GMT -5
Yeah he should ignore it...because there's virtually no time left in the game...just wave your arms up and let's go to OT. I'm not a NOVA fan so I couldn't tell you...but like I said...if the tables are turned...I'd want to see it played out in OT instead of having a whistle blown in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Feb 13, 2008 10:32:48 GMT -5
Yeah he should ignore it...because there's virtually no time left in the game...just wave your arms up and let's go to OT. I'm not a NOVA fan so I couldn't tell you...but like I said...if the tables are turned...I'd want to see it played out in OT instead of having a whistle blown in that situation. I agree with you that I'd rather see that game to go OT. The problem though is that the foul was called with a full second left (clock then ran down to 0.1). The foul wasn't whistled until a step and a half after the contact, meaning "virtually no time" actually means at least a second--probably more if Jay Wright stops worrying about his cuff links and asks the refs to go to replay. So now because Wallace is bumped out of bounds Nova gets the ball back with plenty of time for a catch & shoot? How is that any more fair than what actually happened? The only other option is for the ref to blatantly miss Wallace stepping out of bounds and not award Nova the ball. You can bet we'd be hearing the same bitching from them if that was the case.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 13, 2008 10:52:56 GMT -5
yeah if the ref ignored both calls and jwall hit a miracle shot, everyone would be complaining that His foot was on the line and that the refs blew the call. Let's get over it.
and As i've stated before of course if this had happened in reverse i'd be arguing it shouldn't have been called, but i would be able to admit why it was called and that it was a valid call. I'd also be way more Editeded at our player for being anywhere near the nova player. I'd blame our player more than the ref.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Feb 13, 2008 11:39:00 GMT -5
There is no judgement or anything else involved here - JW stepped on the line - Donato saw it - agrue all you want about foul or no foul, but a call had to be made as soon as he stepped on the line.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Feb 13, 2008 12:41:22 GMT -5
Recalling that Pitt game makes me feel absolutely fine about the outcome in this one. I will similarly feel fine when Syracuse loses the game on Saturday for being whistled for having six men on the court.
|
|