Duke vs. BC - Page 4

refTN · #46 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 03, 2006, 07:02pm

Quote:

Originally posted by RefAHallic
May I chime in? Williams got to a spot in front of the basket and elevated from there. The offensive player jumped toward the basket (and thus toward Williams) to initiate the contact. The offensive player did what every coach tells a scorer to do when attacking a big man. I got my first look at the play on PTI Thursday. Guys, it took a lot of GUTS by that official not to call a foul. Who was the official by the way. I could always use another mentor.

I believe that it was Gary Maxwell.

jbduke · #47 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 04, 2006, 02:10am

I thought I'd wait a few days to chime in on this one, since nobody would give any credence to my assessment of the play since I would be said to be obviously incapable of an objective critique. So I'll simply say that that I agree with the biggest UNC fan on this board and leave it at that.

My real question is this: if it weren't Duke, do any of you who are so cock-sure that this was a foul believe that you might be able to see your way clear to maybe, possibly, think differently about this one? Somehow I think that if this had been Creighton versus SEMO, some of you guys would be willing to take a second look at your first impression. Just a thought.

WinterWillie · #48 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 04, 2006, 05:15am

Quote:

Originally posted by jbduke

My real question is this: if it weren't Duke, do any of you who are so cock-sure that this was a foul believe that you might be able to see your way clear to maybe, possibly, think differently about this one? Somehow I think that if this had been Creighton versus SEMO, some of you guys would be willing to take a second look at your first impression. Just a thought.

You're right. This was only the #2 nationally ranked team playing the #15 nationally ranked team (AP Poll) from the ACC. The nationally ranked #1 team in the country (only a few miles down the road from Chestnut Hill in Boston) from arguably the number #1 conference (The Big East) in the country did not play that night.

jbduke · #49 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 04, 2006, 11:53am

Nice non sequitor.

JRutledge · #50 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 04, 2006, 02:10pm

JD,

I do not think it matters who the team are. I think many officials penalize the defense when they make good plays or do nothing wrong. It could be the school of the blind playing the school of the deaf and many officials would still call this a foul on the defense. The fact that this happen in a Duke game makes the topic more interesting but nothing is going to change many judgments by officials. That is why I referenced the NCAA Bulletins. It takes more guts to make a call against the offense or not to call a foul on the defense when the ball handler/shooter hits the floor.

Peace

WinterWillie · #51 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 04, 2006, 06:59pm

Quote:

Originally posted by jbduke
Nice non sequitor.

With malice towards none.

WinterWillie · #52 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 04, 2006, 07:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge

I used to ref Teddy Ebersol's game at the Gunnery.

jbduke · #53 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 05, 2006, 03:45am

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
JD,

I do not think it matters who the team are. I think many officials penalize the defense when they make good plays or do nothing wrong. It could be the school of the blind playing the school of the deaf and many officials would still call this a foul on the defense. The fact that this happen in a Duke game makes the topic more interesting but nothing is going to change many judgments by officials. That is why I referenced the NCAA Bulletins. It takes more guts to make a call against the offense or not to call a foul on the defense when the ball handler/shooter hits the floor.

Peace

Rut,

You seriously don't read any anti-Duke bias in any of the posts in this thread? Seriously?

JRutledge · #54 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 05, 2006, 12:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by jbduke

Rut,

You seriously don't read any anti-Duke bias in any of the posts in this thread? Seriously?

JD,

I think you are paranoid. Stop thinking everyone hates Duke so much that this has to be the reason they would make this decision. I see officials make calls like this a lot and Duke is not on the court.

Peace

jbduke · #55 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 05, 2006, 01:09pm

Rut,

I won't bother you any more on this matter after this post, but two things:

1) I don't think that Duke-hating is the reason a lot of people have the first reaction that they do. I think that a lot of people would look at any two jerseys and say, at first, "That's a foul." My point is that I believe that if the defender weren't from Duke, many would have been much more willing to see that this play isn't "obviously a foul."

2) Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they're not really out to get me

JB

rulesmaven · #56 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 06, 2006, 01:17pm

I think someone hit the nail on the head earlier. Sherman :0) is a great shot blocker. The officials know this. When you've established time after time that you know how to block a shot without fouling and that you understand the difference between verticality and lack thereof and the difference between contact and illegal contact, I think you're going to get the benefit of the doubt.

I remember that Emeka Okafor got the same exact treatment many times in his Junior year. Time after time after time, you'd see a very close call not called, and the same thing would happen -- you'd start watching the replay with skepticism and then by the end you'd sort of shake your head and think, "well, darn it, that was clean." Enough of those in a year, particularly with officials who by February have seen you a couple of times, and you're going to get exactly what Sherman got on that call -- officials who don't anticipate and who have in the back of their mind that they are watching a player that can make spectacular clean plays, so they have confidence that what they think the see (or didn't see) is in fact what happened (or didn't).

At that said, it was an extremely close call. I'm not as convinced as the rest of you on verticality. I'm glad the player didn't make the shot, because that would have been a tough one. As it was, I don't think it changed the outcome.

Nate1224hoops · #57 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 06, 2006, 03:09pm

Hey sorry I bailed out on this coversation last week, but I didnt work Friday and had no opportunity to get back to it this weekend. Again, I dont see the play as many of you have. I think it's a call that has to be made. If it happens in the frist half, the call is made. Time and situation are very important in this play. Had the foul been called there is still 8 seconds left with BC at the line shooting 2. If he makes both, BC still has to foul and send Duke to the line for 2. Then come down and hit a prayer. So that call would not have changed the game. I knew something would come of this and it has.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/..._andy#20060203

Here is the link to ESPN's insider magazine. Seems as though the ACC has something to say about the call/no call. It doesnt say that they missed the call or that they got it right, but I have a hard time believing that there would have been a meeting (especially one that the press heard about) to tell the officials that they got the call right. It's incinuated in the article that had the foul been called it wouldnt have changed things much.

refTN · #58 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 06, 2006, 04:40pm

Nate I semi agree with you. I think you could have a foul there cause of the situation, but let me throw this at you. Dave Libbey, a great officiating teacher, said that you can call the same type play differently in different parts of the game and still be right. Yes, this would probably be a foul earlier in the game as a game management foul, but this late in the game and being as vertical as he was, I would just have to pass on it myself, just as Gary did, and if I get to talk to him I will see what he says.