Barkley going off

[LoveShack]

bout the ND lane violation. He should just shut the hell up. The way I see it it was called because it was called in our game yesterday, otherwise they probably let it go. So in a way we help beat ND. Feels good.

 

[bnoro]

Chuck.

He needs to get off college basketball studio shows. He's essentially useless.

 

[McNabb2Brominski]

Hes right though! Its a BS call. Its one thing to call it in the middle of the game but its another to call it right at the end. The ref decided that game. Its a shame. And I never see that called during the season anyway. Why do they starting calling those now?

 

[Cusefannotindc]

The difference is in our game the guy got the rebound, it had to be called. In this game he was just out there.

 

[KingOtis]

Hes right though! Its a BS call. Its one thing to call it in the middle of the game but its another to call it right at the end. The ref decided that game. Its a shame. And I never see that called during the season anyway. Why do they starting calling those now?

No, the player decided the game by violating the rule.

And every coach should have gone over the rule after what happened yesterday.

 

[mike32768]

Chuck.

He needs to get off college basketball studio shows. He's essentially useless.

Worse than useless!

Last year (you know, the year UConn won it all) he must've said Big Least a thousand times - 'cause I heard him say it five times in two minutes.

It might have been funny once Chuck, but not five times.

 

[Cuseman78]

Hes right though! Its a BS call. Its one thing to call it in the middle of the game but its another to call it right at the end. The ref decided that game. Its a shame. And I never see that called during the season anyway. Why do they starting calling those now?

Good lord I hope you are kidding. So you essentially just want to ensure that you see a fun ending so all rules be damned. Dumb post.

 

[JLine]

Hes right though! Its a BS call. Its one thing to call it in the middle of the game but its another to call it right at the end. The ref decided that game. Its a shame. And I never see that called during the season anyway. Why do they starting calling those now?

Because during the year players rarely commit that violation. Watch any game tomorrow the two players behind the 3 point line will just stand there. It's an obvious call when it happens but it truly doesn't happen that much, so it's not called a lot.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I love how only things that happen at the end of the game are deemed to "decide" the game. Notre dame had noone to blame for losing that game other than themselves. Set aside the lane violation...if notre dame doesnt choke in several different ways down the stretch, that lane violation is meaningless.

but BECAUSE it happened at the end..it decided the game.

i also hate the NBA rule that in the final minute of the game, the refs can go to the video to determine what player the ball went out of bounds off of. What? So it doesnt matter who the ball went off of the other 47 minutes of the game? why is a blown possession early in the game less valuable than one at the end? perception that is why...and that perception is flawed

 

[SUMBA]

Hes right though! Its a BS call. Its one thing to call it in the middle of the game but its another to call it right at the end. The ref decided that game. Its a shame. And I never see that called during the season anyway. Why do they starting calling those now?

This conditional officiating is total BS. A violation is a violation, period. If a player commits a violation at any time during the game he decides the game by committing that violation. Otherwise, at what point do we stop following the rules?

How about 10 minutesleft in each half we send the refs to the showers because we want the players to decide the games. Call the games consistently throughout.

The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules.....

 

[dasher]

This conditional officiating is total BS. A violation is a violation, period. If a player commits a violation at any time during the game he decides the game by committing that violation. Otherwise, at what point do we stop following the rules?

How about 10 minutesleft in each half we send the refs to the showers because we want the players to decide the games. Call the games consistently throughout.

The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules.....

I think Higgins and Burr did exactly that last year in the rutgers St john's game!

 

[Chip]

bout the ND lane violation. He should just shut the hell up. The way I see it it was called because it was called in our game yesterday, otherwise they probably let it go. So in a way we help beat ND. Feels good.

Note to every team going forward (SU included), just get your free throw rebounds the old fashioned way, box out and rebound.

It may upset the basketball snobs, but it's still a pretty effective way of rebounding a miss. Oh, and it's within the rules.

 

[Victory Lap]

I love how only things that happen at the end of the game are deemed to "decide" the game. Notre dame had noone to blame for losing that game other than themselves. Set aside the lane violation...if notre dame doesnt choke in several different ways down the stretch, that lane violation is meaningless.

but BECAUSE it happened at the end..it decided the game.

i also hate the NBA rule that in the final minute of the game, the refs can go to the video to determine what player the ball went out of bounds off of. What? So it doesnt matter who the ball went off of the other 47 minutes of the game? why is a blown possession early in the game less valuable than one at the end? perception that is why...and that perception is flawed

This. And what people don't realize is that the refs "decide the game" in every game. A called penalty only decides the game as much as a non-call. Non-calls are probably even more "game-deciding" than calls are, because they violate the rules of the game that every player and coach are supposed to adhere to. It's cowardly refereeing because they don't want to get skewered by @$$holes in the media.

The worst incidence of conditional game-calling I can remember was during the NFL wild-card game between the Cards and the Packers in 2010. In OT, Rodgers gets plowed about 5 seconds after he releases the ball. No call. On the next play, a Cardinals' pass-rusher grabs Rodgers' mask and drags him to the ground by the mask, causing a fumble, which the Cards return for a TD. No call. Why? Because it was close to the end of the game and the refs were afraid of media analysts saying that the refs "decided the game." Well, they did decide the game - by not calling penalties.

 

[Victory Lap]

 

[Victory Lap]

Listen to the announcers. Not one of them says: "that may have been a facemask penalty." Not one. Even in slow-mo replay, where the rusher's hand is grasping Rodgers' facemask causing his head to swivel in ways human heads aren't supposed to move, and the game callers don't say a thing!

 

[Victory Lap]

This attitude has some negative implications. Players will become more brazen in violating rules at the end of the game because they know the refs won't call it. How is that preferable to a game being called according to the rules?

 

[SUalldway]

Chuck.

He needs to get off college basketball studio shows. He's essentially useless.

The fat in his butt has infiltrated his brain - he's dumber than ever.

 

[jsshap]

No, the player decided the game by violating the rule.

And every coach should have gone over the rule after what happened yesterday.

I disagree with first sentence (to the extent you suggest call was right call) but certainly agree with second. Its the same thing was not calling foul in a tie game with 5 seconds to go unless its a clear foul. Tie goes to the no call in that situation (and there are lots of virtual ties in basketball). Many probably call that horrific call in the G-town - Nova game a few years ago in final seconds, 65 feet from the basket that decided that game. You simply don't call that. There are similar examples to give in every sport. Everyone who has played competitive sports should agree with that.

 

[SkanSU]

I just want tomake 1 observation. Barkley is obviously not there for his analytical skillsbut rather for comedic relief. Lets admit the fact that he is not the sharpest tack in the box; the elevator doesn't exactly got to the top floor; lotsa dust in the attic, etc.