Hitman21ST Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 no yeah i agree with that part, but i dont agree that they white dude was fouled on the inbound pass. That i was fine with, the other is wrong but to be honest i was expecting something more drastic with all this commotion about it on espn and stuff You need something more drastic than not blowing the whistle on the travel and stepping out of bounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Damn, that was SEC football bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Damn, that was SEC football bad. You never quit do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 You never quit do you?:no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 no yeah i agree with that part, but i dont agree that they white dude was fouled on the inbound pass. That i was fine with, the other is wrong but to be honest i was expecting something more drastic with all this commotion about it on espn and stuff yeah, but it wasnt just that last play. i was watching the last couple minutes of the game. it was bad. i kept thinking, man the refs are really blowing this. the obvious calls just got worse and worse. especially the last 20 seconds or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Fired. GTFO you morons. Here's my take: It appeared that both guys were going for the ball on the throw-in. Yeah, a foul probably could have been called on the St. John's player, but seriously, a bang bang play like that is rarely called. I could see the officials eating the whistle there. And yeah, the guy traveled, stepped out of bounds with 1.7 seconds left. However, it likely wouldn't have made any difference. More than likely Rutgers probably doesn't even get a shot off if they had gotten the call right. From the reactions I've heard, I would have thought the officiating was way worse. I've seen WAY WAY worse than that before. Plus Rutgers sucked, anyway. Who cares. Not like they would have gone on to win the Big East tournmant or anything. And that's the only way they would have gotten in the NCAA tourney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Here's my take: It appeared that both guys were going for the ball on the throw-in. Yeah, a foul probably could have been called on the St. John's player, but seriously, a bang bang play like that is rarely called. I could see the officials eating the whistle there. And yeah, the guy traveled, stepped out of bounds with 1.7 seconds left. However, it likely wouldn't have made any difference. More than likely Rutgers probably doesn't even get a shot off if they had gotten the call right. From the reactions I've heard, I would have thought the officiating was way worse. I've seen WAY WAY worse than that before. Plus Rutgers sucked, anyway. Who cares. Not like they would have gone on to win the Big East tournmant or anything. And that's the only way they would have gotten in the NCAA tourney. Take the name Rutgers out and replace it with Duke. Would you still feel the same way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 The refs kicked the ending. Undeniable. The no-call on the long throw in was fine despite the coach's protest, but you DO NOT STOP OFFICIATING until the horn sounds - and even after the horn sounds if you don't hear it. The ref responsible for that sideline has to whistle the out of bounds even if they let the travel go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 WTF. Both officials are looking right at it!Even worse. The closest official is being blocked out by the St Johns coach who is inexplicably 10 feet outside the box walking upcourt with 2 seconds left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 And yeah, the guy traveled, stepped out of bounds with 1.7 seconds left. However, it likely wouldn't have made any difference. More than likely Rutgers probably doesn't even get a shot off if they had gotten the call right. Please promise me that you will never EVER become a basketball official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 . And yeah, the guy traveled, stepped out of bounds with 1.7 seconds left. However, it likely wouldn't have made any difference. More than likely Rutgers probably doesn't even get a shot off if they had gotten the call right. I have to assume this is sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 the no call on the foul was a good call. THey only screwed up the out of boundsin all reality they probably wouldnt have scored anyway.. It is rutgers Perfect post. No foul was committed but Rutgers should have had another desperation attempt from beyond mid-court with 1.5 seconds left. It's not like the refs had an impact on the way the game turned out. This is one of those "outrage for the sake of outrage" stories. ---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 09:40 AM ---------- Please promise me that you will never EVER become a basketball official. I think he's acknowledging that the call should have been made while also staying objective enough to understand the impact that missed call...none. It's possible (probably less than 1%) that Rutgers would have tied or won the game with a second chance and less than 2 seconds. But people are framing this as though the refs lost the game for Rutgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper 21 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 rutgers should have gotten two free throws and the ball at half court throwing the ball in the stands is a technical foul. i coach community college basketball in the vccs, and if that happened to me i would have been ready to kill the refs. to say that the game wasnt affected cuz they couldnt get a shot in 1.7 secs is an idiotic statement and irrelevent. derrick fisher hit a three pointer with .4 seconds left in the playoffs vs the spurs. i wonder if that was less than 1% chance he hit that. but he did, and the lakers went on to win a championship. get out of here saying it wouldnt affected the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinswillwin06 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 It should have been a techincal foul on the player who threw the ball in the stands as well as the rutgers coach for leaving his coaching area. Then it should have been Rutgers ball with 1.7 seconds left. The refs really weren't that bad, they just blew the call, this happens a lot. No where near the worst ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 rutgers should have gotten two free throws and the ball at half court throwing the ball in the stands is a technical foul. i coach community college basketball in the vccs, and if that happened to me i would have been ready to kill the refs. to say that the game wasnt affected cuz they couldnt get a shot in 1.7 secs is an idiotic statement and irrelevent. derrick fisher hit a three pointer with .4 seconds left in the playoffs vs the spurs. i wonder if that was less than 1% chance he hit that. but he did, and the lakers went on to win a championship. get out of here saying it wouldnt affected the game. It's a good thing that I didn't say the game "wasn't" affected but said that it very likely would have ended with the exact same final score. Of course, anytime a team can get a shot off, there's a chance they can make it, but all I'm saying is that the outrage doesn't match the actually likelihood that Rutgers would have won the game. If they play that last 1.7 seconds 100 times, St. John's probably still wins by the same score 99 times. Therefore, all I'm saying is that, despite the refs making a mistake, they hardly robbed Rutgers of a W...they robbed Rutgers of one more long-shot chance to steal a W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Here's my take: It appeared that both guys were going for the ball on the throw-in. Yeah, a foul probably could have been called on the St. John's player, but seriously, a bang bang play like that is rarely called. I could see the officials eating the whistle there. And yeah, the guy traveled, stepped out of bounds with 1.7 seconds left. However, it likely wouldn't have made any difference. More than likely Rutgers probably doesn't even get a shot off if they had gotten the call right.Bolded portion. He traveled, stepped out of bounds, and threw the ball into the stands. There should have been a technical foul assessed, which results in 2 shots and the ball - all with 1.7 seconds on the clock. Rutgers makes the 2 tech shots, all they need is 2 to win. They would be inbounding the ball at midcourt. It is not only feasible, but likely, that they get off a good shot. With 1.7, you can catch, drive and shoot. Hell, with .6 you can catch and shoot. 1.7 sec in the half court is an eternity in basketball.This was inexcusable officiating. The refs should be suspended from the Big East tourney and the NCAA Tourney at least. There also needs to be an investigation into each of the officials, if it turns out the over/under in Vegas was 128. That screams conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Pope...I disagree but have made my points earlier. I've only found a message board post, but it looks like the O/U was 130. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Pope...I disagree but have made my points earlier. I've only found a message board post, but it looks like the O/U was 130.The game, if called correctly, awards Rutgers 2 technical shots and the ball. Hell, the Louisville cheerleader got a tech for doing the same thing when he thought the game was over. They should have been awarded 2 FT and the ball at half court with 1.7 sec on the clock. That changes everything. As to the O/U, I know nothing about sports betting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 The game, if called correctly, awards Rutgers 2 technical shots and the ball. Hell, the Louisville cheerleader got a tech for doing the same thing when he thought the game was over. They should have been awarded 2 FT and the ball at half court with 1.7 sec on the clock. That changes everything. As to the O/U, I know nothing about sports betting.... I only mentioned the O/U since you did in your post. I was just trying to help in that aspect...130 looks just as suspicious as 128 in my opinion. Though, for the record, I don't believe gambling had anything to do with it. As for the game...I guess I saw what the player was doing was throwing the ball up to let the clock run out. So, I get that TECHNICALLY they could have whistled him for a technical foul there. I see your point...I just don't see this as the travesty that others do. I think they made one pretty bad mistake, nothing more or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Bolded portion. He traveled, stepped out of bounds, and threw the ball into the stands. There should have been a technical foul assessed, which results in 2 shots and the ball - all with 1.7 seconds on the clock. Rutgers makes the 2 tech shots, all they need is 2 to win. They would be inbounding the ball at midcourt. It is not only feasible, but likely, that they get off a good shot. With 1.7, you can catch, drive and shoot. Hell, with .6 you can catch and shoot. 1.7 sec in the half court is an eternity in basketball.This was inexcusable officiating. The refs should be suspended from the Big East tourney and the NCAA Tourney at least. There also needs to be an investigation into each of the officials, if it turns out the over/under in Vegas was 128. That screams conspiracy. I agree with all of this in response to Bubblescreen's post. And anyone remembre Christian Laettner against Kentucky? Anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Bad call but old news Come noon it'll all be under the rug as we enjoy 4 marquee BE games Francessa called it a "enormous embarrassment" , wouldn't go that far. He also demanded Rutgers go back on the court to finish it off. Can't do that chief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I agree with all of this in response to Bubblescreen's post. And anyone remembre Christian Laettner against Kentucky? Anything is possible. "Anything is possible" doesn't equate to the refs stealing a W from Rutgers. As I've mentioned several times, the refs took away one last opportunity for Rutgers to throw up a prayer...I'll concede that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 "Anything is possible" doesn't equate to the refs stealing a W from Rutgers. As I've mentioned several times, the refs took away one last opportunity for Rutgers to throw up a prayer...I'll concede that.1.7 sec from half court is by no means a prayer. Couold easily get a clean, solid look from the arc in 1.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 1.7 sec from half court is by no means a prayer. Couold easily get a clean, solid look from the arc in 1.7 Semantics...my point isn't that Rutgers had NO chance to win. If you want to call it a 20% chance, that's fine. My point is that this is being painted by some (not just in this thread but on the radio, etc.) as though Rutgers had the game won and the refs gave it to St. Johns. That, obviously, is no where near the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 So who believes that those refs actually "withdrew" from the Big East tourney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.