This is a stupid thread.
OT Duke/'Cuse: Again, why basketball will always be #2...
Crable on Smith was the right call...
Yep. Saw it live from across the field, seen the replay umpteen times, and I still don't understand how it's even a question.
It was definitely the right call if it happened in present times. In 2006, the rules didn't enforce illegal hits on QBs nearly as much as today's time - therefore I think it's up for debate
...the same exact play happened in the USC vs UCLA game a week or two later. Not only was no flag was thrown, but the play was celebrated/glorified by the announce team.
The USC-UCLA game had the EXACT same play, with a maybe even MORE violent helmet-to-helmet hit against the UCLA QB by a USC linebacker. No flag, and the hit was replayed as the "hit of the game" over and over by ABC and then by Sportscenter. It was absolutely no different than the Crable hit. The only reason the Crable hit was flagged (at that time in 2006) was that it was on the OSU sideline in Columbus. Total home-cooked call.
It would of course be flagged today. Everyone is much more sensitive about helmet-hits now.
*#3 behind hockey
but they are clearly #3 and it isn't close.
Look at the variety of commenters in basketball open threads vs hockey ones. Dozens of people talk in the bball threads. The hockey threads are the same five people every time (and I'm one of them)
I totally agree with the principle you are stating but I actually thought both of those individual calls you referenced were correct
The Fair one is 50/50 and had it been at 'Cuse it would have been a blocking foul, but the Parker charge was one of the most obvious charges I've seen in a long time that went the other way. And this is nothing new. Every game has 4-5 calls that are a mess, but the way they always tend to gravitate to the home team, especially at Assembly and Cameron and a few other venues ruins the game.
Yes I agree with the way they are usually called. Going on the road in college basketball is the equivalent of getting jobbed but in these cases i thought the Duke defender was more set than the cuse defender
No way! The last one on Fair(?) especially, the Duke guy was still moving, though it seemed sublte enough, he was moving. One USED to have to establish the position, for say a half second, not just creep up and meet at the same time and act "set" as players now do and sometimes get the call.
Yeah I agree but the cuse player is still clearly sliding left and back when parker makes contact with him and a lot less subtlety than the fair play
Not a chance... Charge 100%. And compare it to the home cooked cheese when they called that charge on Stauskas at Assembly when Ferrell was clearly still moving his feet? Reverse the roles there and that would have been a blocking foul on Stauskas since it was at Assembly. The sport is really a joke at times when you watch it played at Assembly and Cameron.
I don't think if there was movement matters, only if the defender gets in position with both feet on the ground before the player with the ball leaves his feet. In both cases it seems like a charge.
Art. 4. To establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball:
a. The guard shall have both feet touching the playing court. When the guard jumps into position initially, both feet must return to the playing court after the jump, for the guard to attain a legal guarding position.
b. The guard’s torso shall face the opponent.
c. No time and distance shall be required.
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal guarding position before the opponent left the playing court.
Thank god there's no subjectivity in holding or pass interference calls, no one EVER bitches about those.
The only sport that refs always get it right is curling. Rock don't lie.
It is so difficult to make every call consistently in a game of basketball that the refs usually make calls that can influence games. I don't like it but doubt it will ever change. If anything, hopefully the road teams can start benefitting from a more even percentage of poor calls...except for tomorrow that is.
1. Baseball is the best spectator sport.
2. Pass interference and holding are just as subjective and affects the game just as much.
1. Yeah, sitting on your butt for 40 seconds between each pitch, 80% of which are balls/strikes/fouls makes baseball such an awesome spectator sport....
2. Re-read my point. There will always be subjectivity in refereeing, that is not the issue. The issue is the bias refs demonstrate for home teams in college basketball, which is not very evident in football. In almost 40 years of watching college football I've never noticed a constant pattern of home cooked subjectivity in holdings/P.I. calls even remotely close to the home cooked cheese you see in college basketball. Not even close.
It can all be justified, like given the fact that basketball refs are much closer to ravenous, crazed home fans than football refs, thus making a basketball venue more intimidating to ref in, but justifications aside, it effing ruins the game in my eyes, and so thank god March Madness is usually played on neutral courts. It's 10 times better to watch than regular season conference games litered with endless home cooking.
As a partial reply here, StatSheet does make a very broad attempt to quantify the bias. They do keep track of some referee stats and they do quantify "home foul margin", which is how many fouls overall the home team receives when compared to the away team. That list is here - LINK
Hopefully, I did that right and the table is sorted by that margin. You can click on individual referees and see which conferences they generally work and what their recent schedule has been as well, if you're interested in a deep dive into the subject. It isn't the complete answer, but hopefully it helps out some.
Have you not watched a single football game played at Notre Dame Stadium? No one gets more homer calls
Everybody thought it was good except the ref.
Talk about picking at 40 year old scab. I remember that game so clearly and yes it was definitely, definitely, DEFINITELY good. In fact, it wasnt even really close to not good - it was just high in the air and coming from the old wide hash marks they use to have in college ball.
I consider myself a baseball fan, but there's no more boring sport to watch in person. You go out to a baseball stadium to drink beer and chill, not watch 2 seconds of action every half minute or so.
Also football is better to watch!
Not according to the Dutch coach.
Hey, guy. Don't complain about home cooking the night before our biggest home game of the season. I'll take a Michigan
win, even if it takes a phantom three point foul to win the game on free throws.
I agree since what goes around should come around in our favor, but we both know it does take something away from the game to win that way.
Let's face it, if you're a ref, way down deep inside it has to be fun to call a charge. You can just see how exciting it is by the exaggerated motions refs make when calling it, like an ump calling strike three.
It's always a dramatic moment in the game, the crowd gasps, the possession changes, and the momentum of the game often swings on the call. All from your tweet on the whistle. It has to be one of the coolest things you get to do as a ref. It's very rewarding if you can justify it in your head even a little. You're a robot if you don't get off on that a bit. Admit it refs.
Honestly, I liked making the call that upset the crowd a little more. I never felt the need to "give the crowd what they want."
There's no conspiracy theory - refs call what they see. They want to be right. That's what matters. There's certainly an adrenaline rush on a big call, but the rush comes from knowing you got it right- which I thought was always sweeter when I made a bang-bang call that the home crowd hated but I knew the tape would show I was correct on.
There's nothing worse than making a call and knowing your wrong - a happy crowd doesn't make up for bring wrong bc the first thing you're going to do after is watch the tape and figure out what made you make the incorrect call
At least that's my experience.
Yeah, I don't think that's the reason that basketball is #2.
but I thought the ref got it right with the charge call on Fair.
I'm guessing we get hosed by calls tomorrow. The reffing in East Lansing was atrocious. We tried to call a timeout and they ignored it and then something happened later and Beilein lost it. We never get the same home cooking in Crisler, but we can try be being loud in opposition to Izzo's bitching.
But the Crable hit was a hit to the head.
Crable was close to being inbounds. Ohio probably doesn't get that call in Ann Arbor.
Any sport that has a third party ejudicate the action is open to human bias. Other than purely timed events (like alpine skiing or speed skating), that would be almost all sports. Not sure how that creates a ranking system of which sport is better.
Gbinije leaned back, waiting for contact instead of standing straight up and Hood was set before Fair jumped. There's evidence of this but it's become so customary to hate on Duke that nobody cares. It's automatically home-cooking.
The call against Fair was egregiously bad. I'm really not sure how anyone can say otherwise.
I thought so too in real time. On the replay, it was damn close.
He was clearly still shifting right, but that wasn't even the biggest problem. There was simply not enough contact to make that call.
Didn't see it live. Saw it at 1220 am est. Dec not a charge. Bad call, but far from the worst. This rule needs fixed. Still fr too much grey area.
Look at ESPN replay. At 12 seconds Cook gets to the area but is nowhere near set. Move tenths of a second further; at 11.8 to 11.7 seconds Cook is still moving and getting into a full upright position...he's moving being the key. At 11.7 Fair leaves his foot and is actually in shooting motion, and Cook is again, still getting into position, still raising his arms and torso. Look at his feet also, they're "shuffling" the entire time, tell tale sign of not being set. Cook also flopped, Fair did not give anywhere near the impact that would send him to the floor that way. I know it's a close call but it shouldn't have to be that close of one.
The way they've let players get charges by getting to spots late and rewarding charge calls has us where we are today in regards to these types of fouls. Jordan Morgan should even likely have fewer charge calls than he does, though he does well, overall, at usually getting to a spot and actually being set.
I know it's a bit lame to have reviewed this stupid call like I have but to me the proof is there; again, it's a close call in a way and yes I've/we've had time to hash it out unlike the officials but I don't see why it's that hard to see a player moving and another actually avoiding the defender pretty well and gettin a shot off. To me was a no call.
I'm not going to break it down right now, but the fact that he was moving doesn't make it a block. You can have legal guarding position and still move sideways and backwards while maintaining LGP.
The fact that his "feet are sliding" is an oft-repeated irrelevant reason when announcers describe a block/charge.
I'm not even saying it was a charge, just wanted to point that out. And the fact that you have to play it 0.1 seconds at a time to make a determination says to me one cannot say this is an egregiously bad call either way.
While you are correct to say that sliding does not make contact a per se block, such movement is absolutely relevant in determining if an off-the-ball defender established legal guarding position before the offensive player's upward motion.
Correct, but once LGP is established, you can be moving sideways or backwards to maintain LGP and "draw a charge" while moving.
That's the detail people leave out or don't understand.
In this case, I am going by memory, but I think he moved in two steps- moved into position and the slid a second step. The question becomes if he established LGP before the slide. If he did, then by rule he can be moving/sliding and still have LGP and still draw the charge.
It was Hood not Cook dumbass
There is a lot of subjectivity in basketball, but there really isn't a good way to get around it. I think it becomes more of a factor when they are stricter on calls and don't let the guys play.
Yes there actually is a way around it but the refs don't want to do it. Put noise canceling headphones on them so they don't get the positive feedback from the crowd when they make a "good" call and the bias goes largely away.
Refs are human and humans inherently would rather be cheered than booed so IMO they favor the home team no matter where the game is called. Mark Cuban charted this (same refs same teams radically different fouls called depending on venue) and Stern went apeshit nuts on him.
There is a simple solution here. Only one group in society has proved consistently impervious to human emotion: psychopathic murderers. Put them in stripes and the days of officiating bias are over.
You didn't yawn when I yawned.
So Craig James should be a ref, allegedly? #rememberthefiveallegedly
I liked the way Boeheim flipped out. I thought it was a terrible call.
I think Fair clearly got hosed based on what the new rules are this year. Cook was shifting into position when Fair was going into the air. He may have been ALMOST set, but that isn't the rule anymore.
Is also a interpretation call.
Stop saying that.