They called a foul on Daniel Horton in that game too. Or so it seemed.
this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
They called a foul on Daniel Horton in that game too. Or so it seemed.
yes I did, been drinking bell's entire brewery all day. my bad. go blue.
I will admit that Morgan's 5th was legit.
Jordan's been here way too long to foul in that situation.
In other scary news, Charlotte only beat USC - nope, USC Upstate 81-76. That loss is looking rough.
On the bright side, FSU just beat UMass (who was 10-0 and #1 in the RPI coming in), which is good for us. I think the FSU win will look nice on our final resume, as will tonight's.
but it seems like our resume is okay assuming we hold serve in the B1G.
Good Wins: FSU, Stanford
Ok Losses: @Iowa St, Arizona, @Duke
Bad Losses: Charlotte
Not too good, not too bad
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.
one of the worst. Same refs in the Duke and Charlotte losses too!
@umhoops tweeted that these refs did our Charlotte and Duke games
Same refs that did the Duke game? Probably the worst crew in basketball right now then.
911 one week from today
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.
I agree that for most of the night, they clearly gave the offense the advantage, at both ends of the court. Still, I don't understand how they swallowed their whistle on GR3's drive with 14 seconds left, only to call a foul at the other end on far less contact.
Irvin's foul was so clear, though, on the replay (just saying). That failure to stop the ball transition defense = tears of frustration for me. They have got to find some way to at least challenge the initial dribbler in transition. They haven't all year.
I highly doubt it was the worst, but it certainly wasn't the best or anything close to good.
in the top 100 worst officiated games. Not even close.
If we get these refs again and they make the same sort of moronic calls, I think we should be exempt from them ever being able to ref for an M game in the future.
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.
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.
It was called pretty equally both ways for the most part - towards whichever offense. The problem was that it was called too much. Every little thing.
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.
I'm sorry for making the mistake of trying to be objective with regards to officials and provide, what I thought, was a well-reasoned alternative viewpoint. My b, yo.
Here's Brent Petway's "Michigan #1" for your entertainment.
I don't think you're remembering the 2005 outback bowl
I don't think that falls under the category of "Michigan basketball game."
Tell that to Matt Shegos, who, I swear to god, once called 2mins for "clipping" and subsequently awarded Anson Carter 2 free throws.
There actually is accountability. Much more than people realize. Officials are graded on every game they work and their future assignments depend on how well they do.
and yet there is Teddy V gooning it up night after night, Eddie Hightower screwing us, and Jim Burr showing up again and again to just murder the game.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You clearly remember the play better than me. Perhaps you're right. I'm not saying that facetiously.
of things I am wrong about.
I am right about this one. I will take my certainty that we got screwed out of a Big Ten chip to the grave!
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.
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.
Sorry. I haven't quite gotten the hang of this tablet.
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.
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
I only watched the last 10 minutes of the 2nd half, but it was a terribly slow game with all the fouls.
Players' mistakes on the refs.
This was an interesting thread to pop up. It never crossed my mind that UM was getting shafted or anything during the game. Stanford had a few skilled big guys who got great position and were good players. Fouling them wasn't unexpected. At the end of the game, that guy kept blowing by everyone and getting legitimately fouled.
I thought there were some odd calls here and there (looked like Robinson took a lot of contact on that drive at the end of the game, should have been an and one) but I didn't think the refs were too much of a factor.
I didn't get to watch any of the game, admittedly, but it seems like every game we play, or even most any college basketball game in general, is bogged down by supposed "horrid officiating." According to the common fan, anyway.
At what point do we accept this officiating as just part of the game, learn how to deal with it within our game-plan, and move on? I'm not calling anyone on the board out who says the refs were bad. Maybe the refs really were bad. But it seems like a very common complaint these days. At what point do we just sit there and say its going to be a poorly called game no matter what happens?
Guess it was worse in person. Two fouls on our two bigs in first minute. Couple touch fouls after the play. Ton of ticket tack fouls again and again. It was odd. A travel call on Walton about 5 seconds after it happen. Seemingly unbalanced in first half.
That said, the fifth foul on Nastic was karma. That, to the eye, seemed like it was clearly on Powell and they gave a fifth to Nastic who was killing us. That would have been merely four on Powell.
After fouling out our whole front line, DQ'ing Nastic was the least they could do. It seemed only fair.
Until Horford fouled out in the most pathetic way...after he got boxed out he inexplicably fouled the guy while his four teammates had basically vacated to the other end (eg it was a nearly perfect bad foul for him to make).
The refs seemed way to involved to me but I don't think they were the worst ever. That said, no one in the big ten will have half a roster come halftime in the regular season if this clown crew officiates a big ten battle.
Oh, if this blog was only around in 1977..we began and ended the season ranked #1..only to lose a disaster of a game to Charlotte in the elite 8. It was poorly played,yes, but the officiating was atrocious! The team was soooo rootable, too..Steve Grote and Phil Hubbard would have been MGoBlog legends.
Lack of mgostatus must keep Hubbard awake at night.
Who cares? We won!!