Grading the week: UCLA beat Stanford. Twice.
I did not see Stanford’s loss to Siena way back in November, but for four months I figured it was the Cardinals’s worst performance of the season.
Then I watched the loss to USC on Saturday and decided Siena has company. The Cardinal was bad in an absentee sort of way.
That wasn’t exactly a surprise, mind you. The official Hotline position on the matter is this:
UCLA game was such a difficult loss that it carried over to Saturday and waylayed the Cardinal a second time — not only because of the stakes but because Stanford had a chance to win would have won if not for an atrocious call.
How atrocious? UCLA’s Darren Collison admitted he wasn’t fouled by Lawrence Hill. Pac-10 czar of officials Bill McCabe admitted (in so many words) it shouldn’t have been called, and the ref himself (Kevin Brill) questioned his decision.
When you have a trifecta like that, it’s safe to say it was an atrocious call. The wrong call. And Stanford couldn’t recover in the 36 hours between games. Maybe it should have been able to, but it didn’t.
(Note to Hotline readers who have compared the Hill-Collison play to the Hill-Kevin Love block/charge a few seconds earlier: Not. The. Same. Thing.
(Looked to me like Love flopped, based on Hill’s brush-by angle at the time of contact. But even if there was contact, and even if there should have been a foul, it wasn’t egregious. The Hill-Collison situation was egregious.)
Anyhow … The Cardinal, and especially its starters, was tired and beaten in every sense — in no condition to beat a good team like USC.
It was no coincidence that the only Cardinal who played well Saturday (Kenny Brown) didn’t play a minute Thursday. He wasn’t as spent, emotionally or physically, as his teammates.
Sure, the Trojans played well, and they showed future Stanford foes how to beat the Cardinal (pressure defense, spread-the-court offense), just in case there was any doubt. They very well could have beaten Stanford on its best day.
But that was Stanford’s worst day, and it was its worst day because of what happened Thursday night.
(More on the UCLA game below.)
***Cal
Results: Lost at USC 93-89 (OT) and at UCLA 81-80.
Grade: B-
This week: vs. Washington (Wed.) in the Pac-10 tournament.
Comment: I’ll give Ben Braun this: His team has not quit.
The Bears are headed nowhere, and Braun’s job could be/has to be in serious jeopardy. But they’re still playing hard, and that has to help Braun’s case.
They rallied from 12 down in the last five minutes to force overtime at USC (before eventually losing by four).
Then they had Pac-10 kingpin UCLA beat until a bad no-call and a circus shot propelled the Bruins in the final seconds.
Two tough road games, and the floundering Bears were within five points of a sweep — that’s why they get a “B-” despite two losses and why school officials might have a tough decision regarding Braun.
(OK, that’s one reason it might be a tough decision. Another is $$$$.)
***San Jose State
Results: Lost at New Mexico State 88-65 and Louisiana Tech 87-83
Grade: D-
This week: vs. Louisiana Tech (Tues.) in WAC play-in game
Comment: Seems the Spartans of old have made a late-season appearance.
SJSU has lost five in a row and dropped into the WAC play-in game. Much of the progress it made over three months was erased by its performance in the final weeks.
The skid includes two games the Spartans should not have lost: at home to Idaho, and at LaTech.
The biggest problems have come on defense: Idaho shot 55 percent in the second half in the Event Center, while LaTech (which had a paltry five wins) shot 51.9 percent for the game.
***Santa Clara
Results: Beat USF 51-50; lost to Gonzaga 52-48.
Grade: B
This week: Season complete.
Comment: Broncos actually won a close game, edging the Dons on John Bryant’s free throws with a few seconds left.
Things were back to normal on Sunday night, though. At the end of a close game against the Zags, SCU couldn’t make the big shots when it needed them.
I’m talking specifically about the possession that began with 35 seconds left and SCU trailing by three.
That’s a ton of time, and I thought the Broncos would try for a quick two pointer, then play the steal-or-foul game.
Instead, they used 20 seconds and ended with a tough three-point attempt by Brody Angley — the worst of both worlds. They used time and took a tough shot.
I haven’t talked to Kerry Keating, but I’d imagine that wasn’t the shot he drew up.
The Broncos finished 15-16 and by my count were 3-11 in two-possession games. That’s a function of limited ballhandlers and playmakers.
In the final minutes, everyone knows they’re going to Bryant. If he’s bottled up, there aren’t many options. Even Angley, valuable as he is, isn’t that effective in late-clock situations.
And besides those two, there isn’t anyone who’s going to take, much less make, a big basket.
***Stanford
Results: Lost at UCLA 77-67 (OT) and at USC 77-64.
Grade: B+
This week: vs. Oregon State/Arizona winner (Thurs.) in the Pac-10 tournament
Comment: Not sure I’ve ever given a “B+” to a team after it got swept, but that was no ordinary sweep.
Stanford won the UCLA game, and the refs took it away. I usually don’t feel that strongly about last-second calls/no-calls. But the Hotline makes an exception when it’s such a bad call that the conference admits it.
I can think of one other situation like it: The Oklahoma-Oregon football game, which was so badly bungled by Pac-10 replay officials (in Oregon’s favor) that the league apologized to Oklahoma.
In filling out my AP poll the next day, I didn’t not count that game as a loss for Oklahoma. I’m doing the same thing here because McCabe publicly questioned Brill’s call, which is the same thing as saying he shouldn’t have blown the whistle.
I’m grading Stanford as if it had beaten the Bruins.
Because for all intents and purposes, it did.
Just ask McCabe.
Jon: I had an even better angle than the camera that showed the Hill charge on Love. I was sitting baseline in the student section and could see that Love got the spot first, and was well-positioned to take the charge. And that’s exactly what happened. There were more poor foul and non-foul calls that went against UCLA then went against UCLA. Just because the last call didn’t go Stanford’s way doesn’t mean they were the only victims of poor officiating. How do you not get that? Oh, and if the foul wasn’t called, it would have been UCLA’s ball with about 2 seconds left. The game would not have been over. Quit giving Stanford a pass for blowing a 14 point lead despite having the officials in their pocket for most of the game.
Stan
Newsflash. You’re the only one who thinks UCLA was getting robbed during the game. A stanford fan can make the same arguement that we didn’t get calls earlier like the repeated hacks on Brook. Wilner got it right here. The whole point is the most egregious call came at the end when the refs manufactured a call to save the Bruins.
Jon,
I would compare the Hill-Collison call to the pass interference call in the Ohio State-Miami(Florida) BCS game several years back that gave Ohio State life and then the title.
Scott…it’s a shame the call was at the end of the game…however, like the Oklahoma/Oregon football game…it’s over, it’s in the books and it ain’t going to get changed.
Maybe some Pac-10 officials will get changed!
Wilner is fanning the flames here…UCLA is busy getting ready for the Pac-10 Tournament and the NCAA’s, I will be bet. I suggest that Stanford and my Cougs along with the rest of the Pac-10 had better be doing the same. We have all suffered bad calls throughout the years. Not all at the end of the game…however, I’ve decided this will be my last post on this situation. Enough is enough.
GO COUGS!!…GO PAC-10!!
Stan,
What you don’t “get” is the Hill made his shot and Collison did not. At the end of the game, let the players decide the outcome, not the officials. Getting into a who got more calls debate is fruitless. (Weren’t the first 5 fouls of the game called against Stanford?)
With all due respect, $$$$ is one reason that firing Braun is an EASY decision. The man makes seven figures. His performance does not come anywhere close to justifying that salary. I understand that there’s a buyout in his contract, but Cal should also be able to save money on its next coach. A 15-14 (6-12) season doesn’t cost a million bucks.
Except that Cal pays Braun the $1,000,000 whether he coaches next season or not - on a buyout agreed to just LAST year. The optics here aren’t good if you’re a California taxpayer. /Lefty
Scott: Newsflash! No, I’m not the only one who thinks UCLA was getting robbed during the game. Case in point: 12,000 plus fans booing the refs as they walked into the locker room at half time. A Stanford fan can certaintly make a case that they didn’t get some calls earlier (as I pointed out to you earlier), but not nearly as strong as UCLA.
Justin: So because Hill made his shot even though he charged into Love and Collison missed his, that’s Ok? You’re kidding right? So by your logic, if Collison would have knocked down Hill by charging into and made the basket then it would have been a non-issue? That’s ridiculous. By the way, Collison made his free throws. Actually, the first six fouls were called against Stanford. What’s your point. Four at of the first five fouls called went against UCLA in the UCLA-Stanford game at Stanford. Arguing the number of fouls called is fruitless - aruging what should or should not have been a foul is not. First, learn what a foul is. Second, watch the game - the entire game and make a mental note of which team is getting the benefit of the doubt of the calls. There were four calls made by the official out of position that went against UCLA in that game. You know why the official in the correct position didn’t call anything - because the play didn’t warrant it.
I’ve never made a case that UCLA got robbed by the officials against CAL. I’ve said that not being allowed to shoot over the backboard is a stupid rule, but UCLA should have to abide by it just the same until it’s changed. CAL deserved to beat UCLA because the last shot shouldn’t have counted. I don’t have any problem with people arguing that. CAL simply outplayed UCLA. They were clutch from the free throw line and nearly everytime UCLA tried to make a run, CAl answered with a big bucket. I’ve already showed more objectivity than Wilner.
Key Point Wilner: UCLA B E A T Stanford, not the refs.
Stan: you are ridiculous. Have a nice day.
Key Point Stan,
the entire NATION outside of a few pompous UCLA fans KNOWS that stanford got screwed, that they beat UCLA. I have never seen such agreement between analysts, heads of officiating, Collison himself…worst call many of us have ever seen.
About the play before: Kevin Love is a flopper, the replays show that at most he was brushed across his body, then he took a nice dive backwards. I give him credit, he’s a good flopper. And its not even in the same league as the final call, regardless.
And I know why you and other UCLA fans are trying so desperately to justify these awful calls: you are terrified that all of this publicity about UCLA getting favoritism over the last 2 games will seep into the psyche of officials in the NCAA tournement…that they will *gasp* actually have it in their heads NOT to favor UCLA. Oh gosh, what will UCLA do without getting all the calls???
Face it, you guys had 2 games handed to you on a silver platter. You should just pray that you play well enough in the tourney to not have to rely on horrible calls to win (with the talent UCLA has, that shouldn’t be an issue, but you haven’t looked so good recently).
If I’m a UCLA fan, I’m praying that they aren’t in any ultra close games in the NCAA tourney, because I really do think all this publicity will make it VERY tough for the Bruins to get favorable calls towards the end of games. As part of the 99% of the country that isn’t a Bruin fan, I hope thats the case lol.
You just don’t get it Stan. All of the other contact calls were very subjective. They showed several replays throughout the game showing contact and double dribbles by both teams that weren’t called. Noone can make a strong case that any one team benefitted throughout the game. Stanford fans will say they got robbed because we shot 8 free thows to your 24 and we can cite several specific examples and UCLA fans will say Love was getting mugged by the Lopez twins. The fact is the game ended up tied in the last minute. Hill made his basket with some contact on Love which may sometimes get called a charge, sometimes get called a block (Love flopped) but in this case was a non call. The vast majority of anaylsts (people who make money analyzing the game, not biased fans) agree this was the appropriate call. Then Hill got position and made a clean block which again the vast majority of anaylsts believe was a non call. This call as Jon notes was egregious and why it got national attention and an apology from the conference head of officiating to Stanford’s coach. This was a nationally televised game watched by hundreds of analysts, coaches, etc. Why is noone else making your case? UCLA beat Stanford in OT but it’s very likely (not definite) that Stanford beat UCLA in regulation.
Mginla I toally agree
Mginla: If I was a pompous UCLA fan as you are insinuating then I wouldn’t have admitted to the call as being a bad one. Not to mention I said CAL deserved to win. Sure, you ignore that I said that just like you ignored all the poor calls against UCLA in that game. Shocking! The entire nation, outside of UCLA fans, does not think that Stanford got screwed. Check the posts to Wilner’s Does the PAC-10 Have a (UCLA) conspiracy problem on its hands? They’ll prove you’re wrong again. Of course you will ignore those, like you’ve ignored the poor calls and non-calls that went against UCLA. I guess UCLA got all the calls when they beat Stanford earlier this year too. In fact, UCLA has yet to win a game legitimately. There has never been a call that went against UCLA ever!
Check the box score from last year’s UCLA-Stanford game. There should have been an outcry for this game because there were so many ridiculous calls that went against UCLA. Yet there was none. Stanford fans had no problem with those officials. Hmmmm … I wonder why.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=270280024
If you don’t see that the media is slanted then I can’t help you. Although, it’s pretty obvious you’re already a lost cause.
Scott: You just don’t get it. Just because one bad call is worse than others doesn’t mean that the other bad calls should be overlooked. No way is Hill’s last basket ever called a block. It can’t be called a block if the player is there in time and is set. Even if Love flopped as you claim he did (which is didn’t) it’s still a charge. Again, I had an even better angle to that play than the camera showed. It was clearly a charge. Oh, and you don’t get foul calls shooting face up jumpers. And if Stanford was the better team and deserved to win they should have proved it in OT.
Stan: Since you had the best angle, I guess the ref should have called timeout and come over and asked you. You could have called the charge.
Love fell down at slight contact. Referring to other UCLA fan comments is not what we were talking about. Show us an article or comment by a collegiate analyst (ESPN, Sportline, Yahoo sports, any national paper) that says Hill definitely charged and that Hill definitely fouled.
Stan,
If you were on a playground or at the local gym, you would be laughed off the court if you called a foul
for the “charge” or the “block” at the end of the game. That is why there has been so much scrutiny, that is why the head of Pac-10 officiating called it a “weak” call, and that is why you should be very worried about a UCLA team that struggled to win its last two games. And lest you forget, those wins over Stanford are the best UCLA can boast of this year, or do you want to crow about beating the fourth place team in the Big 10?
Stan,
I would call a foul right now because you are getting burned. No leg to stand on. Collison admitted it, the Pac-10 head ref admitted it, we know it, the whole country knows it and deep down I think you know it, UCLA got handed a gift. Justin said it, you should be very concerned.
Scott: Your sarcasm doesn’t make your argument any stronger; we both know that. Is that really the best you can do? The Stanford Daily said it appeared to be a travel or a charge. But I’m sure that your not convinced eventhough the Stanford Daily would be more inclined not to mentioned it. An argument by a collegiate analyst doesn’t mean anything to me. They were looking at it from the same angle you are - where it’s also clearly a charge, just not as clear.
Justin: I already said that it was a bad call on Hill. I guess you only selective read. You’re right, I would get laughed off the court if I called that charge at our gym. Charges aren’t called at our gym. Neither are backcourt violations. You can get away with carrying the ball two. Don’t try to compare rules played at the local gym with the rules are played in an NCAA basketball game. You’re making a fool of yourself. UCLA has beaten MSU when they were ranked #10, Stanford twice, Washington State when they were ranked #4 and either 15 of 16, as well as Davidson, Maryland (which beat UNC), as well as the rest of the teams in the PAC 10 at least once. Am I worried about UCLA? Sure. They’re not a very good shooting team, often get off to slow starts, and have trouble guarding big men in the paint at times. That being said, I feel like they have a great chance of making it to the final four.
Card97: I already said that Collison didn’t get fouled by Hill. You’re right, he admitted it; he also said he heard it was a makeup call. Now you know what for.
Keep them coming fellows.
Jon, I’m surprised to see you get so emotional over this (you’re a better and more credible writer than to let your passion show so obviously), but in the end the refs made the calls (or didn’t) and that’s the outcome everyone has to live with.
Had the refs in the UCLA at UDub game called Tim Morris for a technical foul when he intentionally threw the ball at Alfred Aboya’s head to avert a 5-second call, UCLA’s looking at two shots and the ball down 5 with 50 seconds to play. If we convert the free throws, it’s a 3-point game (single possession) with the ball and 50 seconds to play, and I think that would have given the Bruins a great chance to pull out the win.
But there was no call, national outrage and debate ensued, and that idiot McCabe blamed Alfred for Morris intentionally throwing the ball at his head (so you can imagine how much credibility McCabe has among Bruin fans and why your citing him as reason why the Hill call was bad is less than convincing). So Bruins fans not only had to live with the outcome of the game, but also that Morris got off scott-free.
But those are the breaks of the game. The team moved on (Howland quickly acknowledging the loss didn’t result from just that one play)and has won 7 in a row since), as great teams do.
In this instance, I think it’s far more debatable than you state as to whether or not Hill committed a foul, but even if you are right and it was a bad call (game appropriate or whatever), Collison still needed to step to the line and hit two free throws with 2.5 seconds to play. And even then Stanford could have regrouped in OT, but couldn’t.
Again, those are the breaks, and great teams need to find ways to move on. Stanford could have all but locked up a #2-seed with a win at USC on Saturday, and they blew it (after failing to respond in OT against UCLA). Blaming both losses on one call is simply making excuses.
Look at what UCLA did over the course of this game: down 28-14, Bruins pull to within 28-18. Down 32-18, Bruins pull to within 38-34. Down 45-36, Bruins pull to within 45-42. Down 56-47, Bruins pull even at 61.
That’s four separate comebacks when lesser teams would have wilted before the Bruins had to deal with that last second scenario. Great teams need to show that kind of resiliency when other teams would quit.
Anyway, Stanford either steps up and shows it is a great team now, or they can continue to fade and blame one blown call for all their troubles. If they are a great team they should be playing on Saturday, aching for a rematch against the Bruins (if we make it that far).
Aaron1050: Great post man.
Unfortunately, there is no rule against throwing the ball off a player. It’s done all the time trying to save the ball or avoid a violation. I agree it’s not in the spirit of the game to throw it off the player’s head but there is no rule against it. And I guess by your examination of Stanford not performing in OT, UCLA didn’t overcome that predicament either since they lost. Speaking of our loss to USC. Who lost to USC at home? Oh yes UCLA. Actually that would be 3 home losses if the refs don’t bail you out.
My bad, forgot about the Texas game. 4 home losses.
Justin
Tell me why it is that at the end of games referees are supposed to swallow their whistles? Players decide game at the end but referees can decide it up to that time. That neither makes any sense nor is it justified by the rule book.
A foul is a foul is a foul - period. A missed call is no worse at games end then at any other point. There were several blown calls during the game - favoring/hurting both teams. They were all regrettable but calls get blown in every game. You live with it. Just as you live with the last call against Stanford. Hill fouled Darren or he didn’t. (He did.)
Oh, and by the way. Why don’t I hear stanford giving the game they won in Tucson back to the Cats. Certainly they won that one on a “blown call.”
Hypocrisy anyone?
Cause a foul being called on that play was the right call. They just got the wrong player. Look at the replay and you’ll see Kirk Walters slap his forearm before the block by Chase. Yes, bad officiating by calling it on Chase but it didn’t alter the outcome. Either way a foul should have been called.
Again, only a UCLA fan would see the play as Hill making the foul. The refs are suppose to swallow their whistles on clean blocks. Which everyone that isn’t a UCLA fan is saying it was.
Scott: Intentionally throwing the ball off someone’s face is unsportsman-like conduct. It warrants a technical foul at the very least. Sure, throwing the ball off someone while trying to save it from going out of bounds is done a lot, but not throwing it off the face of an opponent as hard as you can. He fired it at Aboya from a stand still position. He could have just thrown it off his foot or leg, but didn’t.
You do know that Luc and Mata were out nearly the entire second half of the game against USC right? And that game didn’t go into OT. Yeah, you don’t want to make that argument. Now if you’re trying to argue that UCLA gets favorable officiating at home, then you don’t want to point out home losses; that only weakens your argument - especially when all of those games were close.
Here’s the link to the Westbrook strip of Anderson in slow motion. Anderson is not tackled, he dives after the ball and knocks it out of bounds. Nor is he hacked.
http://telemachus.s mugmug.com/gallery/4 432674_9EWJ3#2636303 40_HwLye-A-LB
Everyone knows the Pac-10 has the worst refs in the country…….and I’m a USC fan. They screwed up the OU-Oregon game, they screwed up the Stanford-UCLA game, they fixed the Cal-UCLA game, and those are just the more famous ones. In both basketball and football, Pac-10 officials are abominable.
Foul was called on Walters not Chase. Check the official play by play on either Arizona’s or Stanford’s website. (Note that this is not the same as ESPN’s play by play)
I realise the futility in writing this because lots of Arizona fans still won’t believe it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3286819&sportCat=ncb
Ahhh, another impartial voice.
Watched the video, looks like a foul with the left arm wrapping up Ryan and the swipe/hack with the right. Good video.
Scott: LOL, Where do you think I got the link for that video? Check the comments for the Forde Minutes, specifically the one that went with the link. Westbrook barely touch Anderson with his left arm and he did it oh so gently. Players are always doing that, and it’s not a foul. Westbrook swiped/hacked the ball that’s for sure. Great video.
No counterargument to the rest of my last post huh?
All I know is that if the Stanford basketball team is still having discussions such as the ones instigated by this blog, the team won’t win another game this season. I’m a Stanford alumnus and fan — and my team was robbed last Thursday night. I was also at Strawberry Canyon on November 20, 1982, where my team was robbed. Yet nothing is going to change.
The good thing about last Thursday’s game is that it was not the final game of the season, i.e. there’s still something to play for (not the case after 11/20/82). So can we please get past this and worry about *this* Thursday’s game and the rest of the season?
Noone (except delusional UCLA fans) buys your arguements Stan. Every impartial analyst agrees. Still haven’t found a story have you. How long did you search? You must really think everyone has it out for UCLA when every story you read says you got 2 games handed to you. The biggest, most well organized media conspiracy ever.
I agree Papa John just fun to mess with UCLA fans heads. They have a complex about it now. Let’s let Stan keep convincing himself. Go Card.
Scott: LOL - “Just fun to mess with UCLA fans heads” That’s bascially admitting that Stanford didn’t get screwed. If you’re trying to mess with our heads then that means you know that Stanford didn’t get screwed. In case you haven’t caught on by now, I don’t need convincing that Stanford didn’t get screwed. Your weak arguments and lack of counterarguments only make mine stronger.
Stan give it up buddy. Your immaturity shows with how you continue with your biased arguments. You also reveal yourself to be a complete idiot. You weren’t even sitting on the baseline during the Stanford game, cause the student section is on the sideline, I’m a UCLA alum and I hate fans like yourself. You are a typical Den member, don’t know jack about basketball, and think your contributing because you jump and yell during games. You are pretty much a cheerleader, moron.
“I agree it’s not in the spirit of the game to throw it off the player’s head but there is no rule against it.”
Yes, there is and McCabe acknowledged that it is a technical foul to intentionally throw a ball at a player’s head (even if to avoid a 5-second call). He simply said that it was his belief that Morris didn’t throw the ball at Alfred’s head intentionally. In fact, he blamed Alfred for creating the contact.
“And I guess by your examination of Stanford not performing in OT, UCLA didn’t overcome that predicament either since they lost.”
Correct. But Jon went so far as to blame Stanford’s subsequent loss at USC on what he described as a bad call at UCLA.
UCLA rebounded from that Washington loss and has since won 7 in a row.
What was our immediate game after that Washington loss?
We won at USC.
“Speaking of our loss to USC. Who lost to USC at home? Oh yes UCLA. Actually that would be 3 home losses if the refs don’t bail you out.”
Don’t be childish. We could throw slings and arrows at each other like that all day (who lost to Sinea? who was swept by UCLA? who lost a last-minute lead at ASU?, etc.). I’m not going to apologize or feel bad for being the beneficiary of questionable calls any more than I am going to complain about being the victim of them. As I said, those are the breaks of the game.
My point is that with the Lopez twins and an experienced supporting cast, Stanford has the potential to be a great team. But until they learn to handle pressure defense from athletic teams (which is why they lost at USC) and play with more poise down the stretch (the refs didn’t hand UCLA those other 12 points they shaved off the Stanford lead), the Cardinal are going to repeat the same ending to their season they had last year with Louisville.
As a fan of the Pac-10 and someone who respects how Stanford plays, there is no excuse for them not making it at least as far as the Elite Eight. Wilner trying to create an excuse diminishes how good this team is and what their fans should expect of them.
Rohith Reddy: I’m the immature one? Please. Immature people like yourself have to resort to insults because they can’t come up with a better argument. I hate people like you. Instead of coming up with a legitimate argument all you do is sling insults. Very classy and mature.
Maybe I wasn’t being clear. I was sitting on the sideline, perpendicular to the baseline. I actually know a lot about basketball which you would realize if you knew anything about basketball. Yes, I enjoy cheering for the team, but I’m not a member of the yell crew so I’m not a cheerleader. Get your facts straight!
it wasn’t that you weren’t being clear, you were straight up wrong because you don’t know much about the game, which is also shown in your continuing arguments. I would have more respect for you if you were on yell crew, but you are just another useless member of the Den, going to games to cheer and watch with Extreme bias. Stop, just stop
As I sit behind the UCLA bench just behind the backboard, I more of less had a perfect angle for the Shipp shot, but I also was able to see most of the disputed plays.
As I said, the games are over and now it’s up to the teams involved to move on, but I would like to offer my “objective” (hardly, I know) takes on these plays:
1. Stanford foul on Hill: My honest reaction was that I was surprised that a foul was called. On the replay, Hill gets him with body all the way to the elbow (the force of the impact of their collisions is clearly seen), but Hill appeared to hold position and the two players met at the point of the ball, which was a clean block.
It could have been called a foul earlier in the game and people would have complained, but disregarded as far as impacting the game (the game was littered with bad calls and non-calls). But because of the situation, it was a questionable call to make, and I can see why Stanford fans would complain.
What Stanford fans need to get over, however, is that this call alone determine the outcome of the game. We could argue about blown calls that allowed Stanford scores (like the no-call on Johnson’s double-dribble or when Luc was called for a pushing foul on a clean rebound under the Stanford basket), but at minimum UCLA comes out of that play with the ball under their own basket and 2.5 seconds to play.
Collison still had to hit two incredibly pressure-packed free throws (literally with the conference championship on the line). And Stanford still could have won the game in the OT (a chance that Cal was not given, but I’ll get to that later).
I don’t want to sound unsympathetic, but Stanford is a potential championship team, and they need to be mentally tougher and more resilient than they showed last weekend.
2. No foul on Anderson: I have less sympathy for Cal fans on this non-call. Again, during the game I was surprised that the ball was awarded to UCLA, but Shipp’s back blocked my vantage as Anderson scrambled for the ball so I did not get a clear view of the play.
However, on replay, it’s clear that Westbrook cleanly swatted the ball away from Anderson. Still debatable though that Anderson touched it last (even with the two replay angles, it’s hard to see if he or Shipp touched it last), but either way it’s not in the same conclusive league as the Hill call, especially when you factor that Westrbook’s pick was clean.
Anderson simply should have done a better job holding on to the ball. And again, all this did was give UCLA the ball. Cal’s defense still had a chance to get a stop and preserve their lead.
3. Shipp’s over-the-backboard shot. This was close (and like I said, I think I was perfectly situated to see the shot in relation to the backboard), and I thought it was extremely close. Shipp obviously shot parallel to and behind the backboard, but the shot only narrowly crossed over the top corner of the backboard when it cam down.
This was a “too-close-to-call” shot, but I was definitely worried that it would not count. In fact, when the refs were reviewing the play at the end of the game, I thought they were looking to see if Shipp’s shot was good, not that they were looking at how much time was on the clock.
And in the end, I would liken Shipp’s shot to Reggie Bush pushing Matt Leinart into the end zone against Notre Dame. It may or may not have been illegal, but there is no way a ref is going to make that call in that situation. Shipp simply hit an amazing circus shot in an incredibly pressure filled situation.
In short, I think we were extremely fortunate to win both of these games. I applaud the team for showing the resiliency it did, but I also think they have no-one to blame but themselves for falling behind by double-digits in both games. Stanford in particular I thought outplayed us, while we played porous defense against Cal.
One things as a Cal or Stanford fan that I envy is your chance for such quick revenge. I have been hoping for a rematch against Washington for weeks, but with Brokcman out, I would be shocked if we don’t play Cal again on Thursday (just 5 days after this infamous game).
Whether Anderson was fouled or not, or if Shipp’s shot should have counted, you’ll have a chance to take it out on the Bruins and settle it on the court.
I am less confident about a rematch with Stanford. I wonder if both teams will make it to Saturday’s championship game, but if we do, again, you’ll have a chance to settle it on the court.
That’s the way it should be.
Aaron
If you can find a statement from Morris saying he intentionally threw the ball at his head to hurt him, I will totally agree with you. I admittedly only saw the play once and it looked like Morris panicked and threw the ball to avoid the 5 second call. Since he is a former Stanford player that ditched our team, I won’t mind coming down on him.
I like how you called my comments childish and then proceeded to throw the same slings and arrows. So since you did, I was just pointing out that it’s hard to come down on a loss to SC when your team lost to them as well. And without the 3 bad calls, you’re swept over the weekend and Stanford and UCLA are co Pac-10 Champions even with our loss to SC. How great would UCLA look then? How resilient? It’s easy to say they found a way to win when it included 3 calls that sparked controversy across the country.
I will agree with you though that the team better respond now. It’s had time to get over it and concentrate on the Pac-10 tourney. Hopefully only us ridiculous fans get so worked up over it. You have to admit it’s a little diferent when UCLA comes off the Washington game with a whole week to prepare for SC and get over it. We faced SC 36 hrs later (why would the pac-10 allow the game to be scheduled at 11AM) with no difference in pac-10 standings on the line.
I’ll be the first to criticize our team if we don’t come out fired up and ready to play tomorrow.
I hope we meet UCLA in the Pac-10 final and enjoy another great game because that’s what this last one was until both sets of fans were robbed of a good ending. Then maybe we can meet a final time in the Final Four.
Rohith Reddy: If you think I care about how much respect you have for me, you’re wrong. I couldn’t care less. I don’t care if people that I have no respect for have no respect for me. If I watch with extreme bias then why did I point out that Love got away with a double dribble at the beginning of the game? I continue to disprove what you say and yet you still say I know nothing about basketball. Other fans have shared the same opinion about both games as I have. I will not stop until the journalists have corrected their errors.
“If you can find a statement from Morris saying he intentionally threw the ball at his head to hurt him, I will totally agree with you.”
He admitted he didn’t want to throw it off his legs or torso. What does that leave?
See his statements at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2004178583_webromar12.html
Besides, watch the replay: his eyes are locked on Alfred’s eyes when he throws the ball.
“And without the 3 bad calls, you’re swept over the weekend and Stanford and UCLA are co Pac-10 Champions even with our loss to SC. How great would UCLA look then? How resilient? It’s easy to say they found a way to win when it included 3 calls that sparked controversy across the country.”
That’s the point: Ifs don’t matter, only the actual outcome of the games.
If Morris had been called for a technical, who knows if we would have won that game? But he wasn’t and we didn’t, so we have an “L” next to us for that game.
Hill was called for a foul, Collison hit the two free throws, and UCLA dominated the OT, so you have an “L” next to you for that game.
No amount of bitching or moaning by either of us is going to change the outcome of either game.
“I will agree with you though that the team better respond now. It’s had time to get over it and concentrate on the Pac-10 tourney.”
Agreed, and I am pulling for your team to do so.
“I hope we meet UCLA in the Pac-10 final and enjoy another great game because that’s what this last one was until both sets of fans were robbed of a good ending. Then maybe we can meet a final time in the Final Four.”
I hope to heck you are right. That would be a “dream” scenario.
Stan, OK…I lied, it is nearly 25 hours since I said I wouldn’t post…at least on the subject that I said I wouldn’t post on…
However, you continue to be on this blog…
And you said you were a UCLCA student…therefore, I say go to class!! Oh, I bet you don’t have to go to class at UCLA…classwork and attendance is only required at little schools like Washington State University…Ok, I know, you are in the “Honors” program at UCLA…or do they have one?
Anyway, drop the crap pal…go spend some time in class and see and talk to me when you have graduated and got some maturity…I would say that will be about 2050!!
If it is a good year…!!
TommyCoug: I’m in class right now. I can post and pay attention at the same time. Yes, UCLA has an honors program, and no, I’m not in it. Attendance is only required for some classes, namely discussions. You don’t seem like the type of guy I would like to see because I can barely stand chatting with you. I’ll actually be graduating next year, so you’re just a tad off.
Aaron I don’t know. He said he apologized right away and after the game and that he didn’t mean to throw it off his head. Sure it doesn’t look good but I don’t know how you say that was purely intentional. That article seems to just prove my point. “It was a reaction” You can choose to not believe him but he didn’t admit to anything.
If you look at the top of this section, my intention was never to try and change the outcome of the game. I just was arguing with another UCLA fan who wouldn’t admit to a bad call being made. All the articles and national press attention (not written by fans) should make that obvious. That fact that it happened in that game is fine. There are more games and the tourney left. We simply can’t have calls like that in a tourney game. Can you imagine the outcry when a team has to end their season in such a way.
I’ll give you credit, you actually admitted it was a questionable call (of course most people think it was worse than questionable) and didn’t need to be made. And yes UCLA should have had the ball with 2.5 seconds with a chance to tie or win. Every other UCLA fan wouldn’t even admit as much or said it was a make up call for Hill not getting a charge on Love. Those calls aren’t in the same league.
Scott: I know you’re not referring to me when you posted this:
I” just was arguing with another UCLA fan who wouldn’t admit to a bad call being made”
I know that because I said it was a bad call against Hill.
Aaron1050,
Regarding whether Shipp’s shot went over the backboard, there are two issues that need to be considered.
1. How is the rule to be interpreted in terms of how much of the ball went over the backboard? It is clear on replay that not all of the ball went over the backboard, but just about half of it.
I doubt there is a rule that helps to resolve this issue. However, on the basis of a very close analogy, I think the rule SHOULD be that if any part of the ball went over the basket, then the shot is illegal and should not count. In football, a field goal is GOOD when a ball flies over the upright and if any part of the ball is INSIDE the upright. Similarly, to determine when a ball is over the backboard, which is a determination of whether something is BAD, the same rule should apply — any part of the ball that is over the backboard.
2. The thing that drives me nuts is that I can’t get a local sportswriter to comment on when a play, like the Shipp shot, is reviewable via video by basketball officials. I think readers would find that interesting, and would like to comment on whatever rule is out there, but I guess local sportswriters are just too lazy to do the legwork to get the answer. I have been told by someone that the determination of how much time is left on the clock and whether a made shot was behind the three point line are the only plays that are reviewable, but I question that answer. If anyone has any knowledge on that issue, please comment.
By the way, Go Bears today. I would be sweet revenge if Cal could pull off an upset against UCLA. The Bears are now playing great under Braun. They will be one of the top three or four teams in the Pac 10 if Anderson comes back next year, given that they will have a very solid player returning — Theo Robertson — and a second potential pro player, after Anderson, which is Christopher. Boykin has turned out to be the player that everyone thought he could be, and Randle is finally starting to play under control. If Cal makes a good effort today and if Anderson says he plans to return next year, I think that Braun deserves at least one more season to see if he can finally turn things around.
Gary –
The NCAA rules define specific plays where instant replay can be used. Most are timing plays and not all games will have a video monitor avaiable for the officials.
Here’s the Wikipedia definition of one example:
“In college basketball, the same procedure may also be used to determine if a shot was released before time expired in either half or an overtime period. In addition, NCAA rules allow the officials to use instant replay to determine if a field goal is worth two or three points, who is to take a free throw, whether a fight occurred and who participated in a fight. The officials may also check if the shot was made before the expiration of the shot clock, but only when such a situation occurs at the end of a half. Such rules have also required the NCAA to write new rules stating that, when looking at instant replay video, the zeroes on the clock, not the horn or red light, now determine the end of the game.[5]”
The post-script references the actual NCAA rules on line in a web edition. Here’s the URL if you want to check the rules out yourself.
http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2007/2007_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf
/Lefty
Gary, I think if Anderson comes back next year, Cal will be quite good. I think the impact of Theo Robertson’s absence to Cal has been underestimated, and I think Hardin’s departure might actually be a good thing for Cal. He has virtually no real basketball skills on either side of the ball, and without him Cal can become a college version of the Phoenix Suns.
BTW, What happened to Omondi Amoke? He was highly-rated out of high school but I didn’t see him play at all this year. D.J. Seeley is also a highly-rated recruit who should immediately help Cal’s guard play.
All that said, however, I think Ryan Anderson is gone. And if so, it will be hard for Cal to break into the upper division of the Pac-10 next year.
Stan: You are what we like to call a troll (someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion, Wikipedia).