The silly turnovers killed us, and little else

[swish7]

I'm not as necessarily worried about overall confidence, because I think we'll destroy Montana, and then for the most part Louisville can be in the rear view mirror.

But if we have another lights out first half against a good team (perhaps Indiana), I'm worried that we'll play the 2nd half like a team waiting to lose. That's when I'm worried that it bites us. This team has to learn how to put the foot on the throat of a team when you have them down. I just don't think they believe in themselves enough to do it. They play like they're wondering when the other team will start their run.

Spot on. I made that post before Montana and UNLV were announced. Unbelievable a week ago, we seem to have a better than average shot at the sweet 16.

Against Indiana, all bets are off. I would be worried about exactly what you posted. We still don't value the ball, acting like these silly, YMCA level turnovers are no big deal.

I could see anybody from the sweet 16 forward ignoring our bigs, locking down Southerland, harassing MCW, and trapping Triche.

Our D is something they have to contend with, but if we return to scoring in the sub 50 range, we're toast.

IMHO, JB needs to use these next couple games to squeeze whatever post / bigs development in that he can.

If not, we could be setting our guards up for another 3 on 5 slaughter.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

WRONG.

Bad officiating is not the responsibility of a team's coaching staff to adjust.

This problem should have been dealt with by the conference or the NCAA a long time ago. Maybe if the coaches of the victimized teams decided to pull their teams off the court & demanding the refs start calling every grab & shove, it could have been fixed, then Louisville wins NO titles in the Big East.

You have a lot of nerve to ask teams to adjust to other teams that are breaking the rules of the game. It's like telling a professor to allow his students to bring a cheat sheet to class with more than half the answers.

Cheating is cheating, & should not be tolerated.

Blaming the refs is so weak. You sound like my alcoholic brother who blames every woe he has on everyone but himself.

I ref basketball, and I will say when a team is playing aggressively and confidently, calls naturally go their way because they look like they are doing what they are supposed to do. They are dictating the flow of the game. Teams that play tentatively and fearfully (typical of Boeheim teams) do things that are not in the flow of the game, and their errors stick out more. They are out of position, a step late, and more weak and awkward looking. They make it easy to call fouls and violations against them.

 

[SWC75]

It was not the refs fault.

It was not JBs fault (well except his role in coaching teams that cannot handle pressure defense).

The refs sucked, but the major suckage occurred after we were already 6-7 silly turnovers into the 2nd half. Valuing the ball is what led us on this mini run. However, you cannot devalue the ball like we did in the 2nd half, and expect to win. There might be a million reasons why bad Triche showed up in the second half, I don't know. Bad back. Psychological damage. I don't know, but it is frightful. How someone who has started 300 games and for seemingly 8 years, cannot receive an inbounds pass, or beat pressure is beyond me. His disease is contagious, and infected MCW, who ended up adding 4 TOs of his own, one and Ollie-like off the foot dribble.

I really feel this was our tournament, but the much better team won. It should have been the dean of the BE, JB up there writing that last chapter. But it was his fleeting 'protege', Pitino. Head, heart, and hustle won tonight. In the 2nd, we lost our head, eventually lost our hustle, then our heart, and lost.

Don't forget the missed free throws. Louisville didn't cause that. Much of the really bad stretch was our trading 1 or no free throws for two at the other end.

 

[rrlbees]

Blaming the refs is so weak. You sound like my alcoholic brother who blames every woe he has on everyone but himself.

I ref basketball, and I will say when a team is playing aggressively and confidently, calls naturally go their way because they look like they are doing what they are supposed to do. They are dictating the flow of the game. Teams that play tentatively and fearfully (typical of Boeheim teams) do things that are not in the flow of the game, and their errors stick out more. They are out of position, a step late, and more weak and awkward looking. They make it easy to call fouls and violations against them.

Do you know you just admitted that refs make calls based on what it "appears" a team is doing. Not what is actually happening. Confirms most of our fears.

Sent using my Commodore 64

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Do you know you just admitted that refs make calls based on what it "appears" a team is doing. Not what is actually happening. Confirms most of our fears.

Sent using my Commodore 64

You used the word "appears", and used it to mean " Not what is actually happening". I did not use that word, nor was my meaning in that context. I "confirmed" none of your fears - you disingenuously manufactured it.

 

[mantonio]

You used the word "appears", and used it to mean " Not what is actually happening". I did not use that word, nor was my meaning in that context. I "confirmed" none of your fears - you disingenuously manufactured it.

You don't EVER reward a team for playing aggressively & confidently if they are FOULING. It doesn't matter if they appear confident, if they touch the opposing player, grab, hack, pull, hipcheck, shove, lightly push, etc... It's a FOUL, & the player should be penalized for it. This is not a game based on emotion from the officials' perspectives, it is a game of RULES from their viewpoint.

 

[SWC75]

Do you know you just admitted that refs make calls based on what it "appears" a team is doing. Not what is actually happening. Confirms most of our fears.

Sent using my Commodore 64

The refs call what looks unusual or awkward, whether its a violation or not, (see Scoop's 'travel' at the end of the Marquette game in the 2011 NCAAs). They don't call rough stuff that is constant, at least as much as they should.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

You don't EVER reward a team for playing aggressively & confidently if they are FOULING. It doesn't matter if they appear confident, if they touch the opposing player, grab, hack, pull, hipcheck, shove, lightly push, etc... It's a FOUL, & the player should be penalized for it. This is not a game based on emotion from the officials' perspectives, it is a game of RULES from their viewpoint.

All I'm saying is that all fouls are a matter of degree. If it looks like the contact is in the context of the game and it looks like it's what the player intended to do, there is less of a chance that a foul will be called. It's not about "reward" (your word, not mine) and it's not about "emotion" (your word, not mine).

I'm trying to help you all here - don't blame your butthurtedness on me.

 

[mantonio]

All I'm saying is that all fouls are a matter of degree. If it looks like the contact is in the context of the game and it looks like it's what the player intended to do, there is less of a chance that a foul will be called. It's not about "reward" (your word, not mine) and it's not about "emotion" (your word, not mine).

I'm trying to help you all here - don't blame your butthurtedness on me.

Let's keep this simple. If the ref sees the player actually touching the opposing player, BLOW THE FRIGGIN' WHISTLE... This removes all doubt about "intended"(Your word, not mine) & actually calls it properly. You cannot treat each team differently, because one appears to be more aggressive. The less aggressive team has equal rights to the proper calls, PERIOD.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Let's keep this simple. If the ref sees the player actually touching the opposing player, BLOW THE FRIGGIN' WHISTLE... This removes all doubt about "intended"(Your word, not mine) & actually calls it properly. You cannot treat each team differently, because one appears to be more aggressive. The less aggressive team has equal rights to the proper calls, PERIOD.

"Intended" was a carefully chosen word, and it stands. If a player is playing with confidence and aggression does something he "intended" to do, there is lesser (not zero) chance of a foul being called. If a player who is playing tentatively and fearfully does something he did not intend to do, there is more of a chance that a foul will be called.

That's "keeping it simple".

You said "If the ref sees the player actually touching the opposing player, BLOW THE FRIGGIN' WHISTLE." Well, you can touch the opposing player without it being a foul. Your solution removes no doubt at all, it greatly confuses the game. Some fouls are easy to call, but many are subjective. Could go either way, or none at all. Game flow impacts decisions. Context impact decisions.

I'm just telling you how it is, not what you want it to be.

 

[swish7]

"Intended" was a carefully chosen word, and it stands. If a player is playing with confidence and aggression does something he "intended" to do, there is lesser (not zero) chance of a foul being called. If a player who is playing tentatively and fearfully does something he did not intend to do, there is more of a chance that a foul will be called.

I'm just telling you how it is, not what you want it to be.

Good posts.

These folks would go ballistic if the game was called against SU the way they want it called against more physical teams. The walkons would be all thst was left in mist games.. Some are irrational, so I'm not sure if you'll ever reach them on this. They want to believe fault for the loss lays with anybody but the players or coach.

MCW looked like he intended to harm the Ville player. It was a vicious clear out. Easy to see why it was called. I didn't know the two hand thing was a rule.

Looking back at the tape, I noticed the refs did call Ville players for bumping MCW on the first few possessions of the second. They were doing their job, at that point at least.

Do you have any thoughts on possible rule modifications to remove the subjectivity from refereeing? Would it be possible?

 

[rrlbees]

You used the word "appears", and used it to mean " Not what is actually happening". I did not use that word, nor was my meaning in that context. I "confirmed" none of your fears - you disingenuously manufactured it.

"They look like they are doing what they are suppose to do"

Those are your words.

Same as appears.

Sent using my Commodore 64

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

"They look like they are doing what they are suppose to do"

Those are your words.

Same as appears.

Sent using my Commodore 64

Absolutely not. You are interpreting one meaing of "appears", and I have clearly explained that that is incorrect.

Don't make the mistake of doubling down on your error.

 

[rrlbees]

Absolutely not. You are interpreting one meaing of "appears", and I have clearly explained that that is incorrect.

Don't make the mistake of doubling down on your error.

It is not hard to interpret the words "they LOOK LIKE they are doing...."

Sent using my Commodore 64

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Good posts.

These folks would go ballistic if the game was called against SU the way they want it called against more physical teams. The walkons would be all thst was left in mist games.. Some are irrational, so I'm not sure if you'll ever reach them on this. They want to believe fault for the loss lays with anybody but the players or coach.

MCW looked like he intended to harm the Ville player. It was a vicious clear out. Easy to see why it was called. I didn't know the two hand thing was a rule.

Looking back at the tape, I noticed the refs did call Ville players for bumping MCW on the first few possessions of the second. They were doing their job, at that point at least.

Do you have any thoughts on possible rule modifications to remove the subjectivity from refereeing? Would it be possible?

Exactly. enough blaming the refs. Foolish