Monumental collapse

[RF2044]

That's the thing...you can't do this sh and expect to beat a top ten team on the road when the officiating is even semi competent.

True. But if the officiating had been semi-competent, we win by 8.

 

[SoBeCuse]

True. But if the officiating had been semi-competent, we win by 8.

I don't think by that much but we win. Just a cluster-F of forces against us yesterday including the team's own ineptitude at the end. What's your take on the rolling the ball up free passes for them to initiate offense?

 

[CuseCPT]

No it isn't. Since when is it a foul on you when you get undercut? He didn't go over anybody's back--he went up, got undercut, and then slid down the human avalanche. This isn't the alpine slide--it's basketball, and that was an indefensible call. Well... it should be indefensible, but unfortunately it was par for the course for a group of referees who blatantly favored one team with their calls pretty much the entire game.

Video of the play in question is accessible via the link below--judge for yourself whether this is a foul on McCullough:

http://www.syracuse.com/orangebaske...s_and_production_in_syracuses_last_two_g.html

Right or wrong, if you end up on top of a dude's back you are going to get called for it most of the time.

 

[RF2044]

Right or wrong, if you end up on top of a dude's back you are going to get called for it most of the time.

Sorry, I don't agree. Watch the video again--McCullough went up straight, he didn't go up over the "top of a dude's back." Instead, he got undercut. He only "ended up on top of a dude's back" because of how they took his legs out. 9 out of 10 times, THAT's what usually draws a foul call--but not yesterday.

It was an absurdly bad call, no matter how it is rationalized.

 

[CuseCPT]

Sorry, I don't agree. Watch the video again--McCullough went up straight, he didn't go up over the "top of a dude's back." Instead, he got undercut. He only "ended up on top of a dude's back" because of how they took his legs out. 9 out of 10 times, THAT's what usually draws a foul call--but not yesterday.

It was an absurdly bad call, no matter how it is rationalized.

Watched it a dozen times, 50/50 in my book. I thought the bigger issue with the zebras yesterday was what was NOT getting called.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Watched it a dozen times, 50/50 in my book. I thought the bigger issue with the zebras yesterday was what was NOT getting called.

I agree as well to both sentences. To me it seems like McCullough is already almost committing an over the back anyways then gets taken for a ride. Kinda hilarious to see him being carried like that.

 

[RF2044]

Watched it a dozen times, 50/50 in my book. I thought the bigger issue with the zebras yesterday was what was NOT getting called.

I don't think it is anywhere close to 50/50. When a player goes up vertically, he's not over the back. That player is also entitled to his vertical space, and allowed to come down unimpeded. That's not what happened in this case--McCullough went up straight and got his legs taken out. Clear foul.

But agree to disagree.

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

True. But if the officiating had been semi-competent, we win by 8.

I think it might have been the worst officiated basketball game that I have ever watched! I have never understood why coaches and players have to do press conferences or interviews but refs never have to answer for what they do during a game. unlike the players the coaches and refs are paid and should have to answer for what happens in a game. Not into moral victories but there were many positives to build off of moving forward in the season.

 

[81South]

I don't think it is anywhere close to 50/50. When a player goes up vertically, he's not over the back. That player is also entitled to his vertical space, and allowed to come down unimpeded. That's not what happened in this case--McCullough went up straight and got his legs taken out. Clear foul.

But agree to disagree.

I agree with RF on this one. On a positive note, very grateful that Chris didn't get hurt on that play.

 

[CuseCPT]

I agree with RF on this one. On a positive note, very grateful that Chris didn't get hurt on that play.

At least everyone can agree on that much.

 

[OneSockUp]

I don't think it is anywhere close to 50/50. When a player goes up vertically, he's not over the back. That player is also entitled to his vertical space, and allowed to come down unimpeded. That's not what happened in this case--McCullough went up straight and got his legs taken out. Clear foul.

But agree to disagree.

No question that Villanova got a lot of calls its way, but this particular play is a terrible example.

Villanova's #3 is clearly in rebounding position. A Syracuse player attempts to rebound a ball over him, contact is made, and #3 attempts to box out leading to your "avalanche." That is an over the top foul ten out of ten times in any league.

 

[RF2044]

No question that Villanova got a lot of calls its way, but this particular play is a terrible example.

Villanova's #3 is clearly in rebounding position. A Syracuse player attempts to rebound a ball over him, contact is made, and #3 attempts to box out leading to your "avalanche." That is an over the top foul ten out of ten times in any league.

Nonsense. McCullough went straight up. There was incidental contact, just like there is minor contact on just about every rebounding play in any game.

That play would result in a foul on the player undercutting the other player's legs 99% of the time. At the very least, a player who goes up is entitled to come down--i.e., the rule of verticality. It's a very simple rule interpretation that the refs got wrong.

That it went against us was both absurd, and part of the pervasive pattern of questionable calls the officials made all game long.