UCLA-Villanova

[refguy]

Anyone see the 1st 5 minutes of this one? There were 2 plays that should have been excessive contact fouls and a 3rd that could have been as well. It seemed like it took a little desire out of UCLA's players when they realized what was to be allowed in the game.

[grunewar]

Announcers talked about the "hard" fouls all game, but said they were not "flagrant" or "excessive," just part of the game.....

[Raymond]

There was one foul in the 2nd half that I think could have went "excessive contact". UCLA did a very poor job of adjusting to the physical nature of the game and pretty much gave up late.

[Adam]

The first foul of the game was a solid foul, but I didn't see anything that should have risen to an intentional.

[mbyron]

Welcome to Big East ball. Nova owned that game.

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There was one foul in the 2nd half that I think could have went "excessive contact". UCLA did a very poor job of adjusting to the physical nature of the game and pretty much gave up late.

All 3 were Eastern officials, one already on Big East Staff, the other 2 would probably want to work that league and I imagine they made a favorable impression on Art Hyland.

[BktBallRef]

I agree refguy. When neither one of those first two were called INT, it pretty much set the tone of the game.

Mike Wood works over 70 games a year, most of them in the ACC. I doubt he cares much whether he works in the Big East or not.