My Take

[Deano]

\

This has been covered ad nauseum. The rule is, he can't enter inside the 3pt arc until the ball hits the rim. Yet he was almost in the lane when it hit the rim. Clearly, it was the right call.

Please tell that to the ESPN fools.

 

[SmilinBob]

Something that has bothered me and it happened in the UConn game I believe as well is that teams that press aggressively are causing our players to panic. Southerland/Fair looked uncomfortable taking it out and guys were not getting open. This has to be fixed. You can't be leading a game at that stage and then have it slip away.

I'm proud of how the kids fought back and this was a tough game, a road game if you will and champions step up and pull games like this out.

 

[RF2044]

The ref's mistake there was to give us the "make up" call. You can do that in the regular season in a smaller gym, but not on national TV in the tournament. Should have called the foul.

Now, as for the lane violation, I don't think it was a violation on the guard who was at the top of the circle. One UNCA guy in the low block got into the lane with one foot a moment early, and it would be technically correct to make that call, but you see that 20 times in every game and they never call it. We were gifted that one.

Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule in question is that any player not lined up in the lane has to stay above the three point arc until the ball hits the rim. In which case, clearly there was a violation. Technically, there were two violations, as the guy also stepped into the lane before Scoop released the ball. It was close, and those things are rarely called in games as you point out. But the post-game focus on the lane violation all seemed to [incorrectly] focus on the guy stepping in instead of the guy running in from the top.

 

[All4SU]

Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule in question is that any player not lined up in the lane has to stay above the three point arc until the ball hits the rim. In which case, clearly there was a violation. Technically, there were two violations, as the guy also stepped into the lane before Scoop released the ball. It was close, and those things are rarely called in games as you point out. But the post-game focus on the lane violation all seemed to [incorrectly] focus on the guy stepping in instead of the guy running in from the top.

Here's what I don't understand. I know less about basketball than probably 3/4 of the folks on this board. I'm sure I also know less than these announcers. But when someone details the rule to me in chapter and verse, I understand it, and don't have to have it explained to me again. Why are these guys having such a difficult time accepting that they didn't know the rule?

 

[RF2044]

Here's what I don't understand. I know less about basketball than probably 3/4 of the folks on this board. I'm sure I also know less than these announcers. But when someone details the rule to me in chapter and verse, I understand it, and don't have to have it explained to me again. Why are these guys having such a difficult time accepting that they didn't know the rule?

I honestly think that there are two factors involved. The announcers were overtly rooting for UNCA, so they were very biased in how they were reacting to that call, since they were rooting for the upset. And I believe that given everything that's happened this year, we are not a well liked team--so many people [including those in the sports media] would love to see us perish in flames.

 

[tbonezone]

the 3rd factor is that ESPN is a sports entertainment business and #16 beating #1 yet getting screwed by the officials is a better story than the #1 beats the #16 again.

 

[orangehomer]

the 3rd factor is that ESPN is a sports entertainment business and #16 beating #1 yet getting screwed by the officials is a better story than the #1 beats the #16 again.

on top of that, it was the only game of the whole day that was within a couple of possessions toward the end. there were barely any upsets+no close games=nothing to talk about.

 

[Orangello]

I would have told the cheerleaders in the elevator I was one of the refs from the game and oh yeah, I am an SU grad which is why I'm wearing orange right now. Pat Forde would have been knocking on your door in under 1 hour.

 

[mike32768]

Agreed with the last couple of posts about the "factors", but would like to add that IIRC the ref who called the violation pointed to the side of the lane as if the call was because one of the UNCA players standing there caused the violation (the one closest to the hoop, left side, who stepped in and backed into - and held - our guy out of the way).

 

[RoysRunts]

Reporter: Coach did you tell your team not to talk about refs in the Locker room? :rolling: That's all they inferred when they came to the presser "Short end of stick" etc. Triche was hammered out of Bounds.....:rolling:

 

[IthacaMatt]

Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule in question is that any player not lined up in the lane has to stay above the three point arc until the ball hits the rim. In which case, clearly there was a violation. Technically, there were two violations, as the guy also stepped into the lane before Scoop released the ball. It was close, and those things are rarely called in games as you point out. But the post-game focus on the lane violation all seemed to [incorrectly] focus on the guy stepping in instead of the guy running in from the top.

Now, let me be honest. I was not aware of that rule, and I'm sure it has been thoroughly discussed by the announcers after the game. I didn't see any of that discussion. It didn't seem to me, however, that the guy was past the 3 point line and came running in to Scoop line of sight. It looked to me like the guy started out around the top of the foul circle, and yes, he was moving before the release, but isn't the idea that he has to impede the sight of the shooter ? Again, I haven't been listening to what the talking heads said on this. If that is the criteria, I dont' think he impacted Scoop's shot. But hey, I'll take it.