|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 5, 2012 13:26:41 GMT -5
Usually the guy who is undercutting the other guy (which was Markel) gets called for the foul. I think that's what happened here though the guy was out of control. I don't recall Starks actively or even passively undercutting the guy so much as he was in one place and the guy jumped on top of that place. Another thing: Is it possible that Hollis posted a 196 O. Rating last night? Again, no genius, but i thought averaging 122 was pretty good, 196 must be something else Starks stood their and the guy jumped into him to get the board and fell over Starks. I'm assuming the ref thought Starks undercut him and that's why Marquette got the ball back. Of course Starks may have been under the new circle area so that might have been considered a foul on him.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 5, 2012 13:29:09 GMT -5
Also, the offense was ran in the second half like it is supposed to be run -- with aggression. When you dribble to the elbow, it's not just a movement -- you are driving between two defenders and heading to the hoop. If they commit to stopping you, you pass. But not if they don't! Defenders are only going to commit to stopping you if they think you are actually trying to score.
It was nice to see.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 5, 2012 13:54:37 GMT -5
Could have missed it, help me out (no volume in my bar watch): If I recall correctly, MU got the ball out of bounds after their guy jumped on top of Markel. Is there a new rule that I am not aware of allowing you to jump on top of another player, concussing him in the process in order to gain possession of the ball? for a second it appeared as though they called a foul on Markel, but obviously that is too preposterous a prospect. Could someone w replay and sound help me understand how that was not a flagrant foul on the MU play who clearly didn't consider where he might land when he jumped? I have already read the strange tale of the "player control foul" that occurs when their player tackles our guy who is just starting an uncontested breakaway, please tell me this is not the same type of situation Usually the guy who is undercutting the other guy (which was Markel) gets called for the foul. I think that's what happened here though the guy was out of control. The refs called a foul on Starks, presumably for undercutting. They explained it at length the JTIII on the court and he didn't seem upset about it.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jan 5, 2012 14:06:02 GMT -5
We dropped one or two spots in Sagarin, but we are now 5-1 against top 25 teams (as rated on Sag.). Cuse is #1 in Sagarin, but 0-0 vs the top 25 teams.
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Jan 5, 2012 14:10:34 GMT -5
Also, the offense was ran in the second half like it is supposed to be run -- with aggression. When you dribble to the elbow, it's not just a movement -- you are driving between two defenders and heading to the hoop. If they commit to stopping you, you pass. But not if they don't! Defenders are only going to commit to stopping you if they think you are actually trying to score. It was nice to see. Amen, Amen, Amen! That is one of the greatest reason the offense got stuck in neutral for the past 3 years at times. The system is designed to get guys to the basket with an advantage. If the guy dribbling the ball beats his man off the dribble and there is no help defense, then he is supposed to take it all the way to the basket. If there is help defense, then the guy whose defender just left to help defend goes back door and tkaes pass for layup at the basket. The players running the system last year(other than Wright) more often than not would not go to the basket so the help defender would never have to make a decision on whether or not to leave the cutter. Vaughn, Thompson and Henry would not make that initial drive. Vaughn did not have the handle or speed to do so. Thompson at that time, did not show that he had the handle to do so, and Henry did not have the confidence to do so. This year everyone with the exception of Nate has shown that they can and will take the ball all the way to the basket. Beautiful to watch when the system is run as it is designed to be run.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jan 5, 2012 14:13:25 GMT -5
The fact the refs didn't call an intentional against Quette when Porter stole the ball at half court was ridiculous. That cost us two free throws and the ball. Porter had a clear line to the basket and the Eagle player simply tripped him. Considering the call it was a good move by the MU player but damn, that could have cost us the game.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 5, 2012 14:17:09 GMT -5
The fact the refs didn't call an intentional against Quette when Porter stole the ball at half court was ridiculous. That cost us two free throws and the ball. Porter had a clear line to the basket and the Eagle player simply tripped him. Considering the call it was a good move by the MU player but damn, that could have cost us the game. We couldn't figure that call out either, but the best we could come up with was that nobody had possession of the ball. Even that seemed like a stretch.
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Jan 5, 2012 14:40:24 GMT -5
The reality was that none of the refes were watching that because those old farts were gassed at that point. They didn't see it until they were both on the floor. Did you see the refs talking? they all looked like they were clueless.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 5, 2012 15:01:11 GMT -5
The fact the refs didn't call an intentional against Quette when Porter stole the ball at half court was ridiculous. That cost us two free throws and the ball. Porter had a clear line to the basket and the Eagle player simply tripped him. Considering the call it was a good move by the MU player but damn, that could have cost us the game. We couldn't figure that call out either, but the best we could come up with was that nobody had possession of the ball. Even that seemed like a stretch. Otto would have shot FT's with a loose ball foul - they actually did call it as a player control foul on the Marquette guy, even though the ball had been poked loose 25 feet away. Ridiculous call.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 5, 2012 15:05:50 GMT -5
The reality was that none of the refes were watching that because those old farts were gassed at that point. They didn't see it until they were both on the floor. Did you see the refs talking? they all looked like they were clueless. Isn't there instant replay. Why couldn't the refs look at that play. I've seen them look at things before in other games.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 5, 2012 15:31:47 GMT -5
The reality was that none of the refes were watching that because those old farts were gassed at that point. They didn't see it until they were both on the floor. Did you see the refs talking? they all looked like they were clueless. Isn't there instant replay. Why couldn't the refs look at that play. I've seen them look at things before in other games. Replay is available but I think only for certain things, like whether both feet are behind the 3 point line, whether the ball hits the rim before the shot clock... HEY, wait - they didn't bother to check when Marquette was perilously close to (and it looked from our section like they had committed) a shot clock violation late in the second half.
|
|
KennaHoya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 181
|
Post by KennaHoya on Jan 5, 2012 15:45:24 GMT -5
Starks was moving under the basket - he clearly was not contesting the rebounder on the play, or intentionally trying to undercut him, but you are going to get called for that foul when you are moving under a rebounder and their legs come out from under them.
Just be glad they are both OK and don't worry about that foul - there were other stranger calls last night. The odd part was the game was called loose for most of the first half, then tight against us in the early second half, then tight against all, and then they let them play for the last 5 minutes.
I have seen more inequitably called games (you should have seen the ones in China). There was a lot of effort and movement on the perimeter last night, and a few flops did or did not get called. I thought Providence was called consistently but with more frustration on fans' part - they let the contact inside go a lot, but not so much outisde. By the way, I think Providence was Cahill, and last night was O'Connell. Same white hair.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 5, 2012 16:25:07 GMT -5
-
I'm not sure enough has been said about Sims -- and Hopkins -- defense down low in the second half. Our perimeter D stopped leaving guys wide open and that opened up drives. But our big guys were good enough to handle it without needed collapsing wings (which opens up those open threes).
Sims isn't getting enough credit for his defense last night. He was positively Roy-like in his ability to prevent any driving player from scoring. I think the only successful drive they had in the last 10 minutes on Sims was when Jabril reached in (and you could see Henry telling Jabril not to do that, b/c he was in control)
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jan 5, 2012 16:26:58 GMT -5
Cahill is the worst ref I have ever witnessed. He is consistently bad. Last night just had a strange flow. There was one call against a small guard (pretty much describes their entire team) who entered late in the game for the first time which I thought was just awful so it wasn't completely one sided.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Jan 5, 2012 16:27:00 GMT -5
One other completely inconsequential complaint (what else is there really to say about the game that hasn't been covered in the last 16 pages?), but why do we seem to keep drawing ESPN's "C" Team?*
One of the announcers seemed be incapable of figuring out who fouls were called on, what the score was, etc. And the production crew was having issues as well. They kept crediting the wrong team for buckets, and at one point early on, I think we had 99979 points. Could not seem to pull it together.
Doesn't really matter one bit. Just thought I'd throw it in.
*One caveat: I'd take their C Team, D Team, or even Helen Keller calling the game over Vitale now.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 5, 2012 16:31:31 GMT -5
One other completely inconsequential complaint (what else is there really to say about the game that hasn't been covered in the last 16 pages?), but why do we seem to keep drawing ESPN's "C" Team?* One of the announcers seemed be incapable of figuring out who fouls were called on, what the score was, etc. And the production crew was having issues as well. They kept crediting the wrong team for buckets, and at one point early on, I think we had 99979 points. Could not seem to pull it together. Doesn't really matter one bit. Just thought I'd throw it in. *One caveat: I'd take their C Team, D Team, or even Helen Keller calling the game over Vitale now. Our comeback was even more impressive considering Marquette had 222232 points at one point last night ;D
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 5, 2012 16:31:51 GMT -5
Seeing as how ESPN's "A" team means play-by-play from either Sean McDonough or Mike Patrick, I'll take the "C" team any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 5, 2012 16:32:32 GMT -5
One other completely inconsequential complaint (what else is there really to say about the game that hasn't been covered in the last 16 pages?), but why do we seem to keep drawing ESPN's "C" Team?* One of the announcers seemed be incapable of figuring out who fouls were called on, what the score was, etc. And the production crew was having issues as well. They kept crediting the wrong team for buckets, and at one point early on, I think we had 99979 points. Could not seem to pull it together. Doesn't really matter one bit. Just thought I'd throw it in. *One caveat: I'd take their C Team, D Team, or even Helen Keller calling the game over Vitale now. The gane had been scheduled for ESPNU since November; remember, we were not exactly a hot commodity back then. We also went up against the Orange Bowl and a Duke game. The longer we can be overlooked and underestimated (not easy when you are #9) the better.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 5, 2012 17:04:15 GMT -5
Anyone else thing the first bucket of the game (by Hollis) was a three? I even thought the [much-maligned] ESPN announcer called it a three.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Jan 5, 2012 17:28:36 GMT -5
That was O'Connell, not Cahill reffing the game. Same poofy white hair, less hair product.
|
|