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.
LeeBallanfant BadNewsRef wroteThere 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.