a doubt it helped thm advance. I mean they got all they wanted from Asheville and a play here or there and the Cuse could be the only 1 seed to every lose to a 16. 109-0 all time 1 versus 16.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:51 PM ^
1. they did get all they could handle.
2. I think UNC-Ashville played as good as they can, shooting something ridiculous like 60% from 3 in the first half, not to mention 88% from the FT line.
3. Syracuse settled for jumpshots all day. When they needed it they went inside and scored at will. Not entirely sure what the hell the game plan of theirs was but they did win.
4. The only call that had a direct effect on the outcome of the game was the out of bounds. THe goaltending call the guy made both freethrows anyway, and the lane violation is a real rule. The point of the rule is to prevent guards from running underneath and grabbing rebounds exactly the way he did.
Theres not a lot behind the idea that, down by 4, getting the ball back that UNCA WOULD DEFINETLY have won the game. There was also the "shotclock simultaneous foul" at the end of the half. Could have been an easy 3 pts for Cuse on another wild call.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:58 PM ^
it would have been a 3-point play and not just two free throws.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^
He actually only made one free throw. So it's a two point difference since it could have been a three point play. And since he didn't cross the three point line until the ball was away, how was it a lane violation? Also, UNC-A would have gotten the ball back down by 3 with the out of bounds call, not 4. Those three calls had a huge impact on the game and I don't personally believe they got any of them right and none of them seemed close.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:59 PM ^
He missed the first, made the second. So it was a one point difference (two points + misseed free throw v. 1 of 2 free throws).
A defensive player who is not on the lane isn't allowed to cross the three point line or the free throw line extended until the ball hits the rim. Refs are usually pretty lenient unless a guy goes all out to get a rebound, which the offending UNCA player did on this occasion. It was the right call. The same call was made in the Iowa State-UConn game.
No defense on the out of bounds call.
March 16th, 2012 at 12:26 AM ^
The game was also only a 3 point game for the out of bounds and there was also the missed 5 second call on the out of bounds play late in the game. The refs 100% made a difference and I have a friend on the cuse team so I was pulling for them.
March 16th, 2012 at 12:45 AM ^
Not saying they didn't... the out of bounds call was horendous. I was simply pointing out that the non-goal tending call (also awful) only cost them 1 point and the lane violation call was correct.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:13 AM ^
In that case, the poster I was responding too had similar faulty logic. He said it was a two point difference. It wasn't. It was the possibility of a two point difference, not an actual two point difference.
I fully grant that we don't know exactly what would have happened and it was a bad call. It was a difference of 1-2 points. It was also early in the second half, and in the game of basketball calls are missed a half dozen times a game. The out of bounds call was a much bigger deal and a horrible call.
In any event. UNCA probably wins if their best player doesn't shoot 1-13.
March 16th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
You are right, of course. I shouldn't assume he would make the free throw, but given that they were 80%+ for the game I considered it a pretty good possibility.
And I had never seen the lane violation from the 3-point line get called before and was not aware of the rule. What is the point of it? It seems like a good hustle play to me.
And the out of bounds play is just horrible to me. It's a foul or UNC-A ball. It reminds me of college football games when a ball is overthrown by 5 yards and a ref calls interference. There is no interference on an uncatchable call. You can call illegal contact and you can call holding or you can call it uncatchable. But interference is no longer an option.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:59 PM ^
By 60% of 3 from the first half, did you mean 36%? They actually shot better from 3 in the second half going 4-9.
I actually don't think Asheville played all that well. Certainly pretty good considering they were outmatched in terms of talent and athleticism, but they didn't play out of their minds good like many teams that upset high seeds do. Their leading scorer was 1-13 from the field.
March 16th, 2012 at 12:47 AM ^
Without their best player, the rest of their team shot 55% from the field and 57% from 3. Thats a pretty solid fucking day no matter which way you cut it (and still shooting in the 80s from the charity stripe). Those are the numbers that bring down high seeds. Syracuse focused on Dickey defensively, think that had a bit to do with his struggles.
I didn't see any concentration on Dickey. I did see him miss plenty of open shots. Shooting in or near the 80s should be the norm not the exception.
he just plain sucked. if does anything, they win. that's why he was bawling on the bench at the end of the game.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^
80% from the charity stripe is not all that of an aberration. Teams do that all the time, especially ones that normally shoot 76% from there. They had a high FG % because they got the ball inside and did not settle for 2 point jumpers. Then they kicked it out for open 3s - which most people can make. It's not like every one of their shots was an acrobatic in your eye teardrop en fuego feeling salty jumper.
Looking at their season averages for each player on the team, only one guy scored 3 points or more than his season average. Primm averages 15.3 and scored 18, Atkinson averaged 11.7 and scored 12, Lane is the only one that seemed to play above his capabilites scoring 16 while averaged 11.5. In contrast, Dickey averaged 16.1 and only scored 5 and Stephenson averaged 13.1 and only scored 4. They did not play out of their minds.
When Burke or THJ struggle and Novak or Douglass hit 4 threes are we saying they played out of their minds? No.
As was shown in the open thread, one of the blown calls was actually correct; someone dug up the rule that showed why the guy committed a violation. The out-of-bounds call was just baffling, though.
There was also that kid getting hit across the face on a missed layup with no call. Just too many bad calls against the same team late in the game.
Lane Violation legit
Also a goaltend earlier in the game that caused a stir
OB call not legit
Explain the lane violation call please? Announcers did a shitty job.
basicly..any player above the FT line extended and behind the arc cant cross the arc until the ball touches the rim. the kid who got the offensive rebound crossed the 3 pt line before the ball hit the rim.
And everybody not on the lane has to be above the foul line extended and outside the arc. (Just to make the rule clear.) Nobody's allowed to crash the six guys on the lane.
This is what's wrong with having all the NBA guys doing commentary--they don't know the rules.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:04 AM ^
the goaltending missed call and the OOB call were absolutely terrible. Just terrible. Other than that the normal missed calls and favortism of the "bigger" team.
considering cuse was not close to covering the spread, I highly doubt money played a roll in those late calls.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:55 PM ^
Usually the "big guys" betting on these events are betting the line or the spread, not the winner (especially when the odds of betting for Syracuse would not make you more than 1$ for every 10 you throw down.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:03 PM ^
Best comment of the night was by the Ashville kid after the game...
"sometimes you have to play against everyone in the building"
March 15th, 2012 at 10:51 PM ^
Damn, powerful quote that wasn't an outright "that was bullshit" complaint. Feel really bad for those kids because they didn't stand a chance at the end of that game with those refs.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:07 PM ^
A bit ironic that a team allegedly burying years of failed drug tests to keep their players eligible getting help from the NCAA refs to beat a 16 seed..
Wonder what smart-ass response Boeheim would have about that?
March 15th, 2012 at 10:54 PM ^
Well Syracuse has been getting away with some bad officiating lately. The extra point in the Toledo football game, West Virginia goal tending call, and now this. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, just wondering why it seems like they're getting away with fucking horrible calls, not just favorable officiating.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:28 PM ^
as the refs during our Minnesota game. I about threw the controller through the TV
March 15th, 2012 at 10:39 PM ^
They were Big Ten officials weren't they...
March 16th, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
Good point regarding Teddy V. He refs numerous conferences. This is why I always get miffed at Bilas trashing the B1G style of play and stating how our league gets away with physical play, etc. Does Teddy V. swallow his whistle when he's in West LaFayette, IN versus Durham, NC? This might make an interesting Diary entry requiring lots of analysis (Ted's whistle average in B1G vs. non-B1G games).
March 15th, 2012 at 10:49 PM ^
I didn't see the game but I heard the officiating at the end was horrible. I know the lane violation was actually "correct" but they never call that and even the analysts in the studio were surprised by it. I really want to see the calls but apparently it was just fucking terrible officiating that, from what I heard, was one of the most obvious attempts to help a team out that they'd ever seen. That was said by multiple people too.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:04 PM ^
...because it never happens. You never see any of the players off the lane crashing the lane on the free throw, and the reason you never see it is it's illegal.
ask Mississippi State. Not only a player above the three point line, but the shooter as well. http://www.forwhomthecowbelltolls.com/2010/3/16/1375022/the-lane-violation-seen-round-the
I missed that game.
I've seen shooters come over the line a few times, but I haven't seen somebody from outside the arc get a rebound on a free throw (that wasn't a pinball job) in at least a couple of years.
March 16th, 2012 at 12:50 AM ^
for not seeing the game or hearing any of the commentary, you sure stretch a bit. Unless you watched the game hold your opinion.
Fact is, UNC-Asheville had the chance to put Cuse away up like 10, but they screwed around and tried not to lose for 5-10 minutes. Cost them the game.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:02 PM ^
I am not going to say that UNC Asheville "should" have won OR that Loyola "should" be winning, but the calls in both games have been terribly ONE-SIDED in each game! Hopefully this entire crew is replaced before Saturday's 3rd round games!
I'm interning at the regional, was stitting a row behind the scores table at center court during this game, and got to go to Boeheim's press conference. A couple things about the refs:
1. Lane Violation - Correct call but the ref pointed at the wrong player which envoked the confusion.
2. Goaltend miss - Terrible no call. The shot was off the backboard and then the Syracuse player came in swatted it off the backboard again.
3. Shot clock violation and no foul call at the end of the first half - Correct call. The ball was still in this hand when the clock hit 0 and since the foul occured after the shot was taken, it was waived off as well.
4. Out of bounds play - Clearly off the Syracuse player. Boeheim mentioned that the refs missed a push which caused it to be off the Syracuse player but that was wrong.
Biedenbach (UNC-Ashville coach) press conference http://www.ncaa.com/video/basketball-men/2012-03-15/mbb-217-unc-ashevil…
Boeheim press conference (he managed to go on a 8-10 minute rant about the APR and an article posted somewhere that involved the US Security of Education after he finished talking about the game): http://www.ncaa.com/video/basketball-men/2012-03-15/mbb-217-syracuse-po…
March 16th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
What are you talking about? If you foul with 1 sec left on the shot clock, then the clock stops. The play continues (for continuation purposes), but the clock stops so there wouldn't be a shot clock violation.
I was watching with the sound off, but clearly the shooter was hacked going for a layup with 1 sec on the shot clock (almost 2 sec on the game clock), but he didn't release the ball until the shot clock was at 0. So the refs waived off the shot and the foul. I was dumbfounded that the refs gave Ashville the ball with 1 sec on the game clock.
Yeah, that really didn't make sense. If he misses the shot, he's shooting free throws, but because he continued and made it, the play was waved off for a shot clock violation.