Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Jan 18, 2009 22:27:54 GMT -5
I totally agree that it is time to let it go. And I really don't know where the argument that he had an agenda goes. What was his agenda, and why would he favor Duke? There is just so much stretching and leaping that would have to go in to keep up some sort of conspiracy theory.
Having said all that, every time I take a step back and just look at the situation, it is unfathomable. Why did Cahill think it was Monroe? Monroe was not even warned previously and had not been involved in any verbal or physical stuff going on on the court.
Again, I just cannot begin to fathom why he thought it was Monroe. And I am not sure if there any truth to the quote I read somewhere on here, that he when he called the T, he specifically said something like "and his 4th foul." That would make it even more suspect, showing that he was well aware of what he was doing.
Res ipsa loquitor.
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Jan 18, 2009 22:53:14 GMT -5
This is the only conclusion you can come away with, and that is what I think bothers many on this board. We all knew that it was going to be bogus calls in this game, and we knew the majority would be against the player they feared the most, Monroe. But for a ref who is familiar with the BE and knows who the best player is, to call a tech on that player while the player is siiting on the bench, and the reason given is that he heard something while his back was turned, is beyond the pale and should be investigated for the integrety of the game. Forget Duke they will continue to have their bogus home win streak for 100+ games and Vitale and ESPN can hype any home game they have by talking about the streak. I am talking about a ref who made a deliberate call to affect the outcome of a game, if it were not so he would have made the tech on the bench and not against a player. No way, given all the loud screaming in that arena could Greg's own mother pick out his voice among all the rest. Just a horrible call that should call all coaches to question Cahil's calls when the underdog team is getting ready to beat the Vegas odds. The sooner folks get away from this kind of thinking, IMO, the better we're all going to feel. The guy made a terrible call--that's a given. Why he did we'll likely not know for sure. It's possible that it was an honest case of mistaken identity. It's also possible that Cahill was already on edge having just had a conference with JT3 and given a warning regarding our assistant coaches, and at the next provocation quickly reacted and in his haste judged that Monroe was the culprit who had made a comment at him. (The notion of a "bench technical" is a red herring IMO--if you "know" who committed a foul, you call it on that person.) It happens--even to veteran officials. I was an official for five years in a different sport and had the misfortunate of making incorrect calls in pressure situations where I reacted too quickly--felt terrible about it afterwards. But to suggest an "agenda" was at play here IMO is not helpful. This requires us to believe that the official made a premeditated decision to single out a team's best player for a technical foul at any provocation at the first case where he could plausibly be blamed. To accept this situation requires far too much of a leap of faith for any objective person IMO. I'll repeat--any official who acts in this manner would likely never make it anywhere significant in his profession, much less to the level of his profession that John Cahill has, and if were determined he was said official would face severe sanctions. It DOES happen--officials will deal with the legacy of Tim Donaghy for years to come--but that's the extreme exception. The remark about Vegas odds--whether in jest or not--is least helpful of all...you'd be better off attributing it to Duke Worship (certainly not Hoya Hatrid--we were 7-1 in Cahill's games last year IIRC). An experienced official made a terrible call at a key juncture that had a strongly negative impact on Georgetown's chances to win a game against Duke. To put it one way: that is CRAP and it's UNFAIR. I'm still mad about it myself. But the only real solution, which I've been maintaining all along, is to just let it go by the time we play West Virginia on Thursday. Rest assured, officials are constantly evaluated and assessed, and certainly the ACC and Big East would be closely monitoring a game like Georgetown-Duke. If there is anything to suggest the official acted unprofessionally, the matter will be dealt with, but likely in a way not drawing too much attention to the situation. Flhoya I respect your opinion and I'm not suggesting that Hoya fans spend anymore time on this than a few venting comments on this board. When I said investigated it should be done by the conference as your last paragraph suggests. I would remind you that Donagy was a seasoned referee with as much if not more experience than Cahil. If investigated and Cahil can convince the conference that his actions were consistant with prior actions in a game he has done before then so be it. Neither I ,nor anyone else on this board needs to know that it is being investigated, but it nevertheless should be done. Given the call and the situation. That call should give any neutral fan pause. The reason I love college basketball and only watch NBA games in the NBA finals, is because it is a league where the referees control the outcome of most games not the players. I would have felt the same way had he made that call against Syracuse in a Duke game.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 18, 2009 23:17:50 GMT -5
Don't forget that at least 2 of Monroe's 3 offensive fouls were questionable as well. He stopped short of contact on each of them. Those plays were called so differently than any other games this season. In the Syracuse game, both sides were banging and most plays were no-calls. Against Duke, every time a body touched a body, no matter how softly and no matter whether the contact had any effect, a foul was called. The effect was to Duke's advantage. All the foul calls on Duke were obvious calls because they reached and slapped. If these guys are Big East refs, why do they call games in a completely different manner at Duke?
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,633
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jan 18, 2009 23:31:51 GMT -5
The technical reminds me of a Spurs-Mavericks I attended last year (or maybe the year before). I had courtside seats, sitting no more than 15 feet from Tim Duncan when a ref called him for a second technical - and automatic ejection - while Duncan was sitting on the bench. Duncan had said absolutely nothing - he had just had a sarcastic smile on his face after another bad call on another Spur, and the ref decided that was enough and through him out. Absolutely incredible (and this comes from a Mavs fan). Even though the game meant nothing because it was at the end of the regular season and didn't matter in the standings, I believe the NBA prohibited that particular ref from working any Spurs game again that year.
The NCAA should do likewise.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 18, 2009 23:49:13 GMT -5
Don't forget that at least 2 of Monroe's 3 offensive fouls were questionable as well. He stopped short of contact on each of them. Those plays were called so differently than any other games this season. In the Syracuse game, both sides were banging and most plays were no-calls. Against Duke, every time a body touched a body, no matter how softly and no matter whether the contact had any effect, a foul was called. The effect was to Duke's advantage. All the foul calls on Duke were obvious calls because they reached and slapped. If these guys are Big East refs, why do they call games in a completely different manner at Duke? I can't answer your last question, but as a team we have to get used to different officiating standards. That's one thing that I think has hurt us a lot in the NCAA Tournament. We go in and play like it's a Big East game, but the refs call it like an ACC game, so we rack up the fouls like crazy. We have to adjust to the fact that the Big East officiating standard is different than normal.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jan 19, 2009 0:29:04 GMT -5
Don't forget that at least 2 of Monroe's 3 offensive fouls were questionable as well. He stopped short of contact on each of them. Those plays were called so differently than any other games this season. In the Syracuse game, both sides were banging and most plays were no-calls. Against Duke, every time a body touched a body, no matter how softly and no matter whether the contact had any effect, a foul was called. The effect was to Duke's advantage. All the foul calls on Duke were obvious calls because they reached and slapped. If these guys are Big East refs, why do they call games in a completely different manner at Duke? I can't answer your last question, but as a team we have to get used to different officiating standards. That's one thing that I think has hurt us a lot in the NCAA Tournament. We go in and play like it's a Big East game, but the refs call it like an ACC game, so we rack up the fouls like crazy. We have to adjust to the fact that the Big East officiating standard is different than normal. Probably part of the reason that Pitt never goes anywhere in the NCAA tourney.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jan 19, 2009 3:35:39 GMT -5
But the only real solution, which I've been maintaining all along, is to just let it go by the time we play West Virginia on Thursday. Rest assured, officials are constantly evaluated and assessed, and certainly the ACC and Big East would be closely monitoring a game like Georgetown-Duke. If there is anything to suggest the official acted unprofessionally, the matter will be dealt with, but likely in a way not drawing too much attention to the situation.
I agree with the above and Hope the last part is correct. I've been operating under the assumption that Cahill really did think Monroe made the comment. To single out a player under any other circumstances would be totally unacceptable. But I still think a fan standing directly behind the bench spewing the kind of venom required to merit a technical was a total bonehead for doing so.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jan 19, 2009 3:56:30 GMT -5
More on the Technical call from Jay Bilas on his INSIDER'S blog on ESPN Jay Bilas ESPN BlogEXCERPT I didn't hear the warning given to the Georgetown bench in the first five minutes of the second half with Duke leading 46-42. But I did see the reaction of Hoya freshman Greg Monroe when official John Cahill whistled Monroe for a technical foul (his fourth personal). Cahill's back was turned to the Georgetown bench, then he turned around and called the technical on Monroe. Monroe reacted immediately, protesting that he said nothing, and pointed behind him to a fan. If Monroe was acting, he certainly fooled me. Georgetown didn't lose because of that technical foul, but it was certainly a major factor in the game. I am not saying Monroe didn't say anything because I don't know. All I know is, if the official had ignored what he had heard behind his back and the technical foul call had not been made, nobody in the building or watching the game on television would have noticed a thing.
Posters are reminded not to post subscription content from other sites in its entirety. A paragraph will do.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jan 19, 2009 9:17:13 GMT -5
Gota love Bilas. Honest & even. I agree that the ref probably just got carried away and made an awful call.
On the other hand, we had a hand in Hendersons face for just about every one of those long threes and he nailed them. That was the real difference. If Greg doesn't get the tech, we have a good shot but it would have been tight.
|
|
joey0403p
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by joey0403p on Jan 19, 2009 9:46:18 GMT -5
respect jay, respect
|
|
|
Post by hoyainindia on Jan 19, 2009 9:56:44 GMT -5
If fans are going to cause Ts then they should at least get their money's worth:
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Jan 19, 2009 10:04:47 GMT -5
I promice this is my last comment on this and I will move on. I agree with Flhoya I should not have used the "Vegas line" reference because it cheapened my arguments. I have no evidence to suggest that and should not have made the inference. But my point was that I think the call was an intentional attempt to affect the game. It could have been because Cahil was just PO'ed with JT3. The fact is that the Hoyas had just made a run to cut the Duke lead to 4 and JT3 had just taken Monroe out of the game with the probable intent to use the offense/defense substitution between Monroe and Vaughn/Sims just as he did in the UConn game. We all know how that turned out in that game. It kept Greg from picking up his 4th foul while still being a force on the offensive end. Now, I think one of the refs of that game,who witnessed this strategy work to perfection, was Cahil. Now it well may be that Cahil was just PO'ed with JT3 , and intentionally attempted to thwart said strategy from working again to show JT3 that if he had kept his mouth shut like he did in the UConn game then this would not have happened , but whatever the reason a referee should not intentionally affect a game in that manner. I agree with Bilas.
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Jan 19, 2009 10:31:02 GMT -5
all i have to say in regards to if Monroe was guilty....if he had said something do you really thing JTIII would have put him back in the game? I don't
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 19, 2009 10:40:15 GMT -5
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 19, 2009 11:21:08 GMT -5
We go around and around on this call, but no matter how "classy" we want to make it or say "it didn't matter" the larger issue here is nobody can say it didn't matter.
They can't say it didn't matter because what makes the call so suspicious is EVERY ASPECT OF IT MATTERED. It was specifically on Greg who was on the bench, it was his 4th foul, AND it stopped a 13-2 run with two shots and the ball. To chalk it up to more than a "widdle oopsy" by the official isn't paranoia, it's being mildly observant.
So let's stop the nonsense about it not mattering or wash over it being just another "bad call." It mattered, they got the call, welcome to playing Duke.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 19, 2009 11:25:29 GMT -5
Even aside from his fair and correct analysis of this specific tech, Bilas makes a VERY interesting point: refs have turned themselves into a show. I think that a foul should be called in the most calm, objective way possible, as long as the players and scorers know what happened. It's then for the ANNOUNCER to broadcast to the arena what happened. Why are the refs calling charges, waving their arms around like they're trying to communicate with the guy in section 450...or land an airplane?
|
|
paranoia2
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 847
|
Post by paranoia2 on Jan 19, 2009 11:29:09 GMT -5
The vegas line or at least sportsbook.com was duke by 8 points shortly before game time. Just putting the information out there. The morning papers' line was 11 but before tip it was 8. If Greg Monroe did anything less than hold up a picture of Cahills mother fornicating with a burro he should not have got the technical.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jan 19, 2009 11:36:51 GMT -5
Even aside from his fair and correct analysis of this specific tech, Bilas makes a VERY interesting point: refs have turned themselves into a show. I think that a foul should be called in the most calm, objective way possible, as long as the players and scorers know what happened. It's then for the ANNOUNCER to broadcast to the arena what happened. Why are the refs calling charges, waving their arms around like they're trying to communicate with the guy in section 450...or land an airplane? Yes. They have a whistle to get peoples attention, they dont need to run up and down the court too. Fans (except the crazy crazy crazy fans who care about every tiny aspect of a game and i mean worse than anybody on here) should never know the name of an official, ever. Officials should be practically invisible. The only reason any of us know Cahill's name or Burr's name is because they have made bad/controversial calls (and often). I can name one NBA official- Tim Donaghy and it is only because he was a crook. Bilas is totally right about refs being able to be overly demonstrative but players and coaches have to be statues- thats crap.
|
|
HoyaSC
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 514
|
Post by HoyaSC on Jan 19, 2009 13:01:44 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jan 19, 2009 13:34:01 GMT -5
This kind of coincidence makes me want to go burn something down. Or write a sternly-worded letter. The former is the UMCP response. The latter is the Gtown response. ;D
|
|