Kentucky-Louisville Switcharoo

[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

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Your perspective is what I want. Not baseless accusations. It looks to me like some funny business happened. You don't agree? That's OK with me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Your perspective is what I want. Not baseless accusations. It looks to me like some funny business happened. You don't agree? That's OK with me.

That is what I gave you. You just did not accept it. And that is OK with me.

Peace

[stiffler3492]

I never told you that you are wrong, I argued back and forth with you.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I never told you that you are wrong, I argued back and forth with you.

I did not say I was right. I just do not see anything that suggests something nefarious took place on the coach's part. Who knows what the coach tells these guys behind closed doors. I just see nothing in the video and it appears I am seeing what others are seeing. And you are a IU fan and alum, so that tells me a lot of why you might think Coach Cal was up to something.

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.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well there's another piece to the puzzle. So Noel should have been at the line for sure, and not Poythress.

Either the officials screwed up by directing Poythress to the line, or Kentucky pulled a trick and got away with it.

[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.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

Jesus H. Christ.

By posting the link, all I wanted to do was get your opinions. I pointed out facts, without bias, that we can know to be true. I made my opinion based on the facts we know, both from the video and the box score. And I made my opinion known.

I've said in this thread that there's no way we can know if Calipari had anything to do with it.

Yes I did say I think some "funny business" went on. Based on the facts we know, that's my opinion. That's of course assuming the officials made a mistake in this situation and didn't get the correct shooter. But we all know what happens when you we assume.

By the way, the fair assumption would be to not assume anything about my opinion, but to ask what it is.

Kentucky says that they argued that Poythress should be the shooter, and the officials agreed. IF, if Kentucky was attempting to manipulate the officials, shame on them, and shame on the officials for allowing it to happen. I think we all know how important getting the shooter in a bonus situation is.

Videos get posted on here all the time asking for "thoughts". Block charge plays, etc. When someone argues their opinion, they ought to be treated fairly. Is that too much to ask?

[Camron Rust]

All I can tell from that video is that it was possible that either player was fouled. It is likely the calling official was calling the one that would have put #3 on the line but that isn't clear from the video. Given the quick whistle, it is not unreasonable that #22 and the UK staff thought he was the one that should be shooting. When there is ambiguity as to who should be shooting, that is on the officials to designate who the shooter should be.

[OKREF]

This situation happening is the officials fault. They have to get the shooter. Yes, Kentucky tried to get the other guy on the line. However the officials need to get the right guy.

Yahoo article..
It's possible Poythress took the foul shots because he thought he drew a blocking foul on Montrezl Harrell as he drove baseline before dishing to Noel, but the majority of the evidence suggests that wasn't the call that was made. The referee who blew his whistle did so after Smith's foul and pointed directly at Smith. Plus, the play-by-play in the box score attributes the foul to Smith.

Kentucky reply....
"Our bench argued that Poythress was the shooter & the official notified the official scorer that #22 was the shooter," Kentucky executive associate athletic director for external operations DeWayne Peevy tweeted. "After seeing the tape, it might have been the wrong call but it wasn't a switch-a-roo. It was confirmed to the official scorer."

The official called a foul, which by the way, didn't look like much of a foul, then none of the 3 knew who the shooter was.

[zm1283]

I really don't know how you could think that it wasn't #3 that was fouled in the video.

It's fairly obvious that they switched on their own and the officials didn't catch it or they identified the wrong shooter in the first place. These guys are good but they aren't infallible.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Jesus H. Christ.

Blasphemy. That's impressive.