Rich bainsey wroteAlso: 31.9 seconds left in second half, lead calls a block. I thought that one was easy.
bainsey Rich wroteI thought that one was easy. I'm not convinced. I had to roll it back to confirm my thought, but the defender clearly had LGP just before the shooter left the floor. And yes, that exchange of threes in the last few seconds were sick.
stiffler3492 Who else caught them saying that Hardaway had five fouls, but was allowed to stay in the game? Now that would have been sticky if he had hit a game tying three at the end of OT.
JRutledge In live speed I thought it was a block. Then when I saw the replay it was clearly a PC foul. Considering how many charges were called, that would have been an easy call for me. But then again I am convinced we penalize the defense way too much as a default when contact takes place. Peace
Rich I'll only say that I had one look while sitting at a Buffalo Wild Wings. Somebody post it so I can eat some crow. The Badgers won despite themselves. Can't believe they ran an inbounds play in OT up 3 to a 40% FT shooter. Don't even know why he's on the floor. And the Badgers are too good a program to ever storm the floor at home.
OKREF stiffler3492 wroteWho else caught them saying that Hardaway had five fouls, but was allowed to stay in the game? Now that would have been sticky if he had hit a game tying three at the end of OT. I heard that. Surely they had it wrong and he only had 4.
just another ref JRutledge wroteIn live speed I thought it was a block. Then when I saw the replay it was clearly a PC foul. Considering how many charges were called, that would have been an easy call for me. I don't understand what you're saying here. You thought one thing live, then clearly saw the other thing on replay. So the easy call would have been which? And what does how many charges were called have to do with this play?
stiffler3492 OKREF wroteI heard that. Surely they had it wrong and he only had 4. You're right, at least according to the Wisconsin play by play. The foul in overtime was his fourth. And ESPN's says the same thing. Good call.
APG just another ref wroteI don't understand what you're saying here. You thought one thing live, then clearly saw the other thing on replay. So the easy call would have been which? And what does how many charges were called have to do with this play? When he first saw it, he thought it was an easy block...but upon further reconsideration, and seeing it again, it was an easy charge. And considering how many other charges had been called during the game (and I'm assuming there were similar plays during the game that were called charges), he easily would have had a charge.
just another ref APG wroteWhen he first saw it, he thought it was an easy block...but upon further reconsideration, and seeing it again, it was an easy charge. And considering how many other charges had been called during the game (and I'm assuming there were similar plays during the game that were called charges), he easily would have had a charge. That's the part I don't like. Similar plays still fall on both sides of the line.
JRutledge just another ref wroteThat's the part I don't like. Similar plays still fall on both sides of the line. I did not say you call something just because you had similar plays called one way and BTW, they called charges on both teams all game long. And for the record the angle they showed was not the best view. The end line view was much better look and clearly showed the defender was in LGP before the player jumped. Peace
APG just another ref wroteThat's the part I don't like. Similar plays still fall on both sides of the line. Taking the philosophy too far can be an issue sure...as can any other philosophy, but I see no issue with it.
just another ref JRutledge wroteI did not say you call something just because you had similar plays called one way and BTW, they called charges on both teams all game long. You didn't, but some do. I'd just as soon not remember the last call at all. We can call charges all game long and the one that decides the game can still be a block. I'm just saying.
Rich APG wroteTaking the philosophy too far can be an issue sure...as can any other philosophy, but I see no issue with it. And I think JRut was just saying that the crew had a history of shipping a bunch earlier in the game so he wouldn't have been surprised to see he same thing on this play. Had nothing to do with calling it a charge because they called other charges earlier. I think.
twocentsworth Similar plays ABSOLUTELY should have similar calls.....Keep calling it a charge! When it's a different play, call it a block. Why is it so hard to understand that similar plays should have similar calls? That's called being consistent.
Rich twocentsworth wroteSimilar plays ABSOLUTELY should have similar calls.....Keep calling it a charge! When it's a different play, call it a block. Why is it so hard to understand that similar plays should have similar calls? That's called being consistent. Every play is different. Judge each play according to the rules and philosophy. No need to think about previous calls at all.
JRutledge just another ref wroteYou didn't, but some do. I'd just as soon not remember the last call at all. We can call charges all game long and the one that decides the game can still be a block. I'm just saying. I am not worried about what others do. I was the one that made the statement about the previous plays. I call plays individually, but consider how many charges were called, I would think a play that close would be called that way as well. Then again that official did not call any of the charges from what I could tell. Peace