Kentucky-Louisville Switcharoo

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

Really? I thought it was equally possible, from as much as could be seen in that video, that #22 was fouled. It is quite likely that #22 thought he was the one that was fouled. It looked more obvious to me that there would be a foul there than with #3. I know there are many times when I've called a foul where the I had the choice of more than one fouler and, not infrequently, the choice of foulees.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Jesus H. Christ.

Blasphemy. That's impressive.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Blasphemy. That's impressive.

Not everyone believes in Him.

Sorry I could not resist.

Peace