Was that the worst officiated Michigan basketball game ever?

Submitted by ThadMattasagoblin on

All around terrible game by the zebras. They disrupted the tempo of the game and they almost fouled out our entire frontcourt. Unbelievable

UNCWolverine

December 21st, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^

Tough to compare dogshit to dogshit. I will still go with Burke's block/foul call as making that game the worst ever even if it's just one call because it cost us a legit chance at a championship.

That said I nominate the worst call of the night when the Stanford player tripped on the halfcourt line and landed on Horton's hip for his 5th foul. Horton's 3rd foul was his only legit foul IMO.

freejs

December 22nd, 2013 at 12:26 AM ^

and I'm hoping Stanford can have a good season - it's easy to like the size they put on the floor every night, although the Pac 10 looks pretty nasty.

Still, though, obviously it comes down to us being a better than average Big Ten team. And you've got to worry about our ability to defend Big Ten point guards if Walton can't earn more time, and our ability to hold up against the frontlines around the league if Mitch doesn't do some serious healing.

If I'm being honest, what I'm seeing on the floor seems like it could really struggle in the Big Ten, but the team can always keep improving (I think they need to).

This win was great, though - finally, something positive, and, one hopes, a decent OOC scalp. That nervewracking last minute could save our bacon on Selection Sunday.

 

 

BJNavarre

December 21st, 2013 at 11:16 PM ^

They were calling too much 50/50 (non-hand check) contact in favor of the offense. I thought Horford's 5th was a bad call and a total bailout. The call against Irvin at the end was an easy hand check call, even if it was weak. I don't have a problem with that one.

It was bad in the sense that they were WAY favoring the offense, but I didn't think they were inconsistant.

Blazefire

December 21st, 2013 at 11:18 PM ^

And looking at the box score, I still can't figure out how we won, except that Stauskas had ice-water at the line, and Irvin could finally shoot. Heck, he was about the only one that could.

I WAS surprised to see that spike only had 5 points and 2 assists. It seemed like he did a lot more. I guess a three from the parking lot will do that.

MGoBender

December 21st, 2013 at 11:27 PM ^

Really?

I mean, I was watching the game at the bar so my attention wasn't completely on point like it often is during games, but at no point did the officiating even cross my mind.  Ok, after second thought, there was one foul call me and my friends questioned.  But only one among the four of us.

I respect your (your being a generally you, not directed at anyone specifically) right to your opinion on the officials, but this was literally the last thread I expected to see about the game on MGoBlog.

MGoBender

December 21st, 2013 at 11:33 PM ^

That's more fair.  I hate the hyperbolic "worst officiating Michigan basketball game EVAAARR" because it is such a talk-radio level discourse.

However, if we want to talk about "over officiating" then that's cool.  As long as we aren't conspiracy theorizing about refs having imagined vendettas against Michigan.

All that said, I hope this "over officiating" continues and it forces players to play defense properly, which should result in a more open game.  It won't be pretty at first and we'll have a lot of FT shooting contests, but that's a sacrifice I'd be willing to take.

TheNema

December 21st, 2013 at 11:33 PM ^

College basketball officiating is a problem every year because it's the same guys who have the jobs. There is no turnover, no accountability, ever.

Behind closed doors, you have to wonder if there are conversations like "So what? Bad refs can get people talking. What are people gonna do - stop watching?"

MGoBender

December 22nd, 2013 at 12:05 AM ^

Look, I'm not saying everyone is perfect, but there is accountability.  For every Jim Burr who people perceive as being terrible, there are several dozen officials who are turned away, "sent down" to lower conferences/divisions/levels after short stints, and given less important games as age catches up to them. 

I've spoken to many, many basketball officials - I've spoken to division 1 officials.  I've spoken to division 1 officials coordinators.  There is accountability.  I don't like how Ted Valentine makes a show of himself.  But he is better than a lot of people, believe it or not.  Get out and watch some HS or NAIA or Division 3 basketball and you'd be very surprised at how ugly things can get. 

As far as Hightower - look at what Tom Izzo (of all people) did last week. 

And for every Hightower, who somehow has been deemed "terrible" by every fanbase, there's a Gene Saratore who is, by everyone's account, excellent (and a NFL head referee).

I don't care if I am unjustly negged - I continue to believe MGoBlog is a place where we can discuss anything - even sports officiating - at a level higher than that of RCMB and since I have a fairly unique insight on this matter (being a former college basketball ref), I will continue to try to offer my perspective.

freejs

December 22nd, 2013 at 12:30 AM ^

I don't think Valentine is glaringly awful or anything - I *do* think Burr is just that bad. I also don't think he can keep up with the game.

Drawing on your perpsective, btw, what is your take on the failure to call an intentional foul on Watford at Indiana last year? I thought it wasn't quite as shameful as Spartan Bob, but I thought it was still a way more than run of the mill outrage.

MGoBender

December 22nd, 2013 at 8:55 AM ^

I was at that game about 5 rows from the top and I coincidentally just deleted it off my DVR a few weeks ago.

I'd really need to see it again.  At the game I was screaming for it - but I was far from being objective and I was 100 yards from the play.  It's certainly possible it should have been a flagrant/intentional. 

The thing is, it's a tough call and it's not nearly as obvious as people will argue or remember.  Indiana fans will say that he was going for the ball, clearly, so you can't call a intentional.  I've scoured the Internet trying to find video and can't.  UMHoops doesn't even mention the call in their game recap nor their "5 key plays" which makes me start to think it wasn't an egregious miscall.

Either way, it's the toughest call in sports to make.  What is excessive and what isn't?  Well, that question has to be answered in the context of the game and what contact has been allowed and hasn't - so even if someone finds video, I would be making an opinion on less than all of the information.

Did they review it?  If so, then I have to believe they got it right.  Contrary to popular belief, all the refs I talk to really like review because they don't want to make a big mistake late in a game anymore than anyone else.

freejs

December 22nd, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^

I think your perspective is a valuable one - and during my summers at camp, the counselor who reffed all our bkb games was a big time cbb ref during the actual season (his knowledge of the game was impressively comprehensive) - and I know you're saying you have to review the play, but if you review the play and don't call it out, I don't know man. I think you're moving from "offering a different perspective" to "being completely unwilling to criticize" territory.

This statement, in particular: "Did they review it?  If so, then I have to believe they got it right."

No, just no. Regular, non-college referees can still tell when something is ridiculous.

Michigan had called the perfect play. Robinson was streaking to the bucket for a game sealing dunk. There was no thought on Watford's part of "gee, I think I can make a play to stop this from happening" (which really should be where you draw the line). Prime Michael Jordan couldn't have stopped Glenn there. Prime Alvin Robertson couldn't have. Superman, maybe. Plasticman, definitely. Outside of the superheroes, no, not possible.

But the clincher was Watford's direct push from behind, in the back, pushing Robinson under the bucket and making it impossible to score, which, iirc from reading the rule book, fits one of the very definitions of an intentional foul.

Refs get it wrong in real time, and sometimes even get it wrong on replay. Part of this is the whole being human thing. Part of this is that some of them are grossly incompetent, and part of this is that some of them are no longer capable of doing their jobs (too old/too fat/too nearsighted). I think at a certain point, you're moving from offering a perspective or an opinion and retreating to a mindset if you're going to absolve certain egregious ref hatchet-jobs.

CodeBlue82

December 22nd, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^

It's great to have your perspective, MGoBender. It helps the discussion no end.

But do you think enforcing current rules more strictly will be enough to stop the trend toward hard fouls? It may be too soon to tell, but it seems to me that kids are colliding just as often, no less hard, and possibly more off balance. 

The Broadstreet Bullies era in hockey didn't really end until the rules were changed. 

MGoBender

December 22nd, 2013 at 6:11 PM ^

Only only if they stick to it, which is unlikely.

The reason I'm done reffing is because my day job didn't really allow for it anymore and I've since begun coaching.  It's very, very frustrating to have the team that is faster, quicker, and better basketball players be disadvantaged because of a bunch of handchecking, armbarring and hip checking that goes uncalled.  As a coach, I hate it.  As a fan of beautiful basketball, I hate it.  And as a fan of Michigan basketball and Beilein's approach to the game, I hate it.

So I hope that the crackdown on all the contact works.  I worry that it won't.

BlueinOK

December 21st, 2013 at 11:35 PM ^

I didn't think it was bad. I mean that's how games are being called now. No hand checking or touch fouls. Yeah it stinks, but hopefully it will change. I've seen too many games with too many fouls this year. 

gwkrlghl

December 21st, 2013 at 11:38 PM ^

but it sure did seem like every single time Stanford went down the court the refs knew what was going to happen. It felt like 50% of Stanford's second half possessions ended at the line