Kentucky-Louisville Switcharoo

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I never said anything about Calipari. The article did. The players could very well have pulled that off on their own.

All we have to go off of is the video and the box score. We know it's the first half, and if you notice the game clock in the background on the free throws, the clock says "1:something" which would be consistent with the box score.

In the video, it looks to me like the C called the foul and pointed at Smith.

And you didn't answer my question.

Well you posted a video that is accusing the coach. I am just saying I am not seeing anything that suggests this is on the coach. Maybe the officials sent the wrong guy to the line, that does happen you know.

Also it is not clear he is pointing at Smith. It is clear he is pointing in the lane where at least two players are located. I am sure the official is saying who he called the foul on as well during his non-verbal action.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Agree with JRut. At some level there appears to have been a mix-up. Either UL #2 fouled UK #3 or UL #24 fouled UK #22 but the headline for the article is way off the mark and that's what causes the problem (to me, at least). Calipari is 50 feet away from the action. What could he have had to do with what went on?

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well you posted a video that is accusing the coach. I am just saying I am not seeing anything that suggests this is on the coach. Maybe the officials sent the wrong guy to the line, that does happen you know.

I posted a link to an article (which I did not write) that contained a video (that I did not make). I'm just a messenger.

Yes, I know it happens. And maybe that's what happened here. Or maybe the players mixed up who was supposed to be at the line.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Calipari is 50 feet away from the action. What could he have had to do with what went on?

Speculating here, but hand signals, code words, any number of things. It sort of had the look of an orchestrated move.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Speculating here, but hand signals, code words, any number of things. It sort of had the look of an orchestrated move.

That's grassy knoll-type speculation, if you ask me. It could be just as simple as UK #3 walked to the line because he happened to be holding the ball when the whistle blew.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I posted a link to an article (which I did not write) that contained a video (that I did not make). I'm just a messenger.

Yes, I know it happens. And maybe that's what happened here. Or maybe the players mixed up who was supposed to be at the line.



Speculating here, but hand signals, code words, any number of things. It sort of had the look of an orchestrated move.

True, but you made sure we knew that Cal was apart of the switch-a-roo in your link comments. I am just stating that I am not seeing how he is the main person responsible. I know officials sometimes lose the shooter on a foul not shooting. And it happens with me from time to time unless there is a very distinctive (tattoos, height, hair style) identifier for the kid that was fouled. I am not ruling out anything, just stating that there are a lot of factors to this situation.

Peace

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

True, but you made sure we knew that Cal was apart of the switch-a-roo in your link comments. I am just stating that I am not seeing how he is the main person responsible. I know officials sometimes lose the shooter on a foul not shooting. And it happens with me from time to time unless there is a very distinctive (tattoos, height, hair style) identifier for the kid that was fouled. I am not ruling out anything, just stating that there are a lot of factors to this situation.

Peace

Jeff, come on. Quote me where I accuse Calipari of having anything to do with this!

[johnny d]

hand signals and/or code words for switching shooters on foul shots, really? i suppose you are a birther and 9/11 truther as well! seriously, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things i have read on this forum!

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by johnny d

hand signals and/or code words for switching shooters on foul shots, really? i suppose you are a birther and 9/11 truther as well! seriously, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things i have read on this forum!

A previous post asked how Calipari could have had anything to do with it.

I answered his question. There's no evidence in the video to suggest that Calipari had anything to do with it, and I'm not making things up. I said I was speculating, though maybe that was a poor choice of words.

I'm not suggesting officials need to be on the lookout for such things. They have enough to worry about in games like that.

If this is the most ridiculous thing you've read on the forum, you haven't been around for very long.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Jeff, come on. Quote me where I accuse Calipari of having anything to do with this!

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

John Calipari Pulled a Switch-a-roo to Get a Better Shooter at the Foul Line, and the Refs Missed It [Video] | The Big Lead

Thoughts?

Anytime you post a link, there is a place where you have the opportunity put the nature of the video or link in your own words.

This is the part that I am taking issue with[Video] | The Big Lead

Or the link would look like this.

It does not make me any difference, I am just stating you posted this video. I think there are holes in the way the situation is being made out to be that is all. And I am not one not to put much beyond a coach either.

Peace

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Anytime you post a link, there is a place where you have the opportunity put the nature of the video or link in your own words.

This is the part that I am taking issue with[Video] | The Big Lead

Or the link would look like this.

It does not make me any difference, I am just stating you posted this video. I think there are holes in the way the situation is being made out to be that is all. And I am not one not to put much beyond a coach either.

Peace

I posted the link verbatim from the website. If anyone thinks that by leaving the link as is, I am in any way agreeing with said link, then they are incredibly naive.

If I must edit the link of everything I post in order to be PC, then so be it. But don't put words in my mouth because I copied and pasted a link directly from another website.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I posted the link verbatim from the website. If anyone thinks that by leaving the link as is, I am in any way agreeing with said link, then they are incredibly naive.

If I must edit the link of everything I post in order to be PC, then so be it. But don't put words in my mouth because I copied and pasted a link directly from another website.

Don't take what I said so personally. I am just stating you posted the link and the video. I am giving you my perspective on the situation just like others did. It does not mean that what people see is right or wrong. It just means there are other explanations. But you cannot get upset with anyone when they do not see what you see. Again, this looks like a typical situation where the wrong player thinks they are shooting and we tell them that the right player should go to the line. It has happen several times over the years with me personally and I would not suspect anything different took place here with a coach that is on the other side of the court.

Peace

[Jay R]

I had PVR'd the game and went back to watch. On the broadcast, you can see referee Ed Corbett signaling the foul on #2 when reporting to the table. That part is clear.

As to whether Calipari had anything to do with it, I have no idea. I do know that a friend of mine played for a coach who encouraged his players to try and get away with that stuff. My friend did not play for Coach Cal though.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I posted the link verbatim from the website. If anyone thinks that by leaving the link as is, I am in any way agreeing with said link, then they are incredibly naive.

Incredibly??? I don't think so.

When people post links (here, facebook, blogs, whatever) it's almost one of two varieties... "Look at this crazy thing, can you believe this happened" - the poster agreeing with whatever the article said. or "Look at what this idiot is saying" - the poster disagreeing with the article.

You did neither. The fair assumption is that you agreed. Especially given that you argued in support of part of it in further posts.

Very rare is the "I have no opinion on this post, but I'm linking it anyway" If you think the reader should assume that you were posting but had no opinion... perhaps you are being incredibly naive.