Lets not be the Summitt | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Lets not be the Summitt

Status
Not open for further replies.
easttexastrash said:
That is what the comments remind me of. As if for some reason there needs to be an excuse for the fact that another team played UCONN closely. UCONN had fewer fouls than Baylor. The "it was the refs bit is "embarrassing."
Expand ...
While I do not agree with Baylor fans, I do not find it embarrassing for fans to feel this way. I am sure you can give plenty examples where the refs made a bad call against Baylor and maybe caused them to lose the game. Officials do affect the game (which is what most fans here and elsewhere are griping about), but rarely the outcome.
 
We've been harping on the need for better officiating forever. This game only reinforces that need. The game is too fast for these folks and they are competent to do their jobs. Some horrible calls on both sides but sad when the refs can't recognize flops a little earlier in the game. As someone said - perhaps it was good that they looked the monitor after the KML "Phantom Elbow" , as the flops seemed to lose their effectiveness after that.
 
HuskyNan said:
You like to criticize us a lot - the way we post, our tone, etc. We do it among ourselves, yes, but we squabble like family. You are a visitor.
Expand ...

If I can be a bit critical of this thought, how is it determined who is a visitor and not allowed full discourse? ETT is a great WBB fan and I think has earned the right to disagree without being asked to leave. We just had a close and tough win over Baylor, we should expect some frustration on both sides.

Can we just hold hands and sing Kumbaya? ;)
 
housekeys said:
While I do not agree with Baylor fans, I do not find it embarrassing for fans to feel this way. I am sure you can give plenty examples where the refs made a bad call against Baylor and maybe caused them to lose the game. Officials do affect the game (which is what most fans here and elsewhere are griping about), but rarely the outcome.
Expand ...

In no way do I think the refs had a hand in the outcome of this game. I always say that the best team won...and the best team won.
 
easttexastrash said:
That is what the comments remind me of. As if for some reason there needs to be an excuse for the fact that another team played UCONN closely. UCONN had fewer fouls than Baylor. The "it was the refs bit is "embarrassing."
Expand ...
The officiating was stunningly bad, filled with phantom fouls and largely skewed against UConn. I'm sorry if feel the need to rewrite that, because you are a good poster, but it is what it is.
 
CL82 said:
The officiating was stunningly bad, filled with phantom fouls and largely skewed against UConn. I'm sorry if feel the need to rewrite that, because you are a good poster, but it is what it is.
Expand ...

So skewed that Baylor had two more fouls that UCONN.
 
easttexastrash said:
So skewed that Baylor had two more fouls that UCONN.
Expand ...
The phantom fouls were largely skewed against UConn. I don't have a problem that Mulkey game planned it. I do have a problem with the refs for calling fouls where no contact occurred. So my complaint is about the officiating not about Baylor. No worries. If we play again it is unlikely to be an issue.
 
I'll be a minority voice. I thought the officiating was fair, a few missed or errant calls, but generally good. Replays stimulate nit-picking by viewers and support complaints by critics.

And mistakes (by coaches, players and posters alike) are inevitable. Beth Mowens, for example, did her characteristically superb job announcing play-by-play. BUT. . .

For a brief period Geno unveiled that 1-2-2 zone (introduced briefly vs.. Temple) and Ms Mowenns called it aa 2-3 zone (force of habit).

And when the refs went to the monitor to look at that "foul" by Kaleena, she would have us believe they were considering whether or not to call a foul. Wrong! The decision to call a foul had been made and no "further review" would change that. The reason they huddled around the monitor was to determine whether a flagrant foul (elbow contact up high) was in order. (It wasn't, of course.)

Great game and a great team effort to beat a proud and telented opponent in their house. Take the "W" and get on the bus.
 
ETT - don't go. Don't always like your posts, but in general like your perspective. And I can ignore the occasional missteps.
 
Kibitzer said:
I'll be a minority voice. I thought the officiating was fair, a few missed or errant calls, but generally good. Replays stimulate nit-picking by viewers and support complaints by critics.

And mistakes (by coaches, players and posters alike) are inevitable. Beth Mowens, for example, did her characteristically superb job announcing play-by-play. BUT. . .

For a brief period Geno unveiled that 1-2-2 zone (introduced briefly vs.. Temple) and Ms Mowenns called it aa 2-3 zone (force of habit).

And when the refs went to the monitor to look at that "foul" by Kaleena, she would have us believe they were considering whether or not to call a foul. Wrong! The decision to call a foul had been made and no "further review" would change that. The reason they huddled around the monitor was to determine whether a flagrant foul (elbow contact up high) was in order. (It wasn't, of course.)

Great game and a great team effort to beat a proud and telented opponent in their house. Take the "W" and get on the bus.
Expand ...
Nice post -
And I think their reviewing of that foul/flop actually changed their perceptions and calling of fouls in the second half. So it actually was a benefit to Uconn that KML picked up that foul.
Also - I think Geno has a valid point - the fouls around the outside have been tighten way up, the mugging in the lane continues, unless you hit the arm above the head - pretty much all body contact is being let go including displacement of the player in the air, unless it is flagrant.
 
UcMiami said:
Nice post -
And I think their reviewing of that foul/flop actually changed their perceptions and calling of fouls in the second half. So it actually was a benefit to Uconn that KML picked up that foul..
Expand ...
Interesting observation.
 
Robertson and Sims are flamboyant floppers...very theatrical! would be entertaining if it wasn't so underhanded
 
rjuconn said:
If I can be a bit critical of this thought, how is it determined who is a visitor and not allowed full discourse? ETT is a great WBB fan and I think has earned the right to disagree without being asked to leave. We just had a close and tough win over Baylor, we should expect some frustration on both sides.

Can we just hold hands and sing Kumbaya? ;)
Expand ...
Visitors = non-UConn fans

This is a UConn board for UConn fans. If a non-UConn fans comes onto the Boneyard and scolds us for whatever, he's out of line. Period. And this isn't the first or even tenth time he's done it, so it's getting old. If he's going to gripe about the game, he should do it with other Baylor fans and not annoy UConn fans. I like visitors from other teams but not when they bother the people that are the reason this board exists. Non-UConn fans are visitors and need to conduct themselves accordingly.
 
I think that, more than the officiating, was one of the announcers dynamic duo's statement that the officials had to keep Odyssey in the game! Really? A foul is afoul, regardless of who commits it. Are we to overlook some fouls because they were committed by the "star"?
 
UcMiami said:
And I think their reviewing of that foul/flop actually changed their perceptions and calling of fouls in the second half. So it actually was a benefit to Uconn that KML picked up that foul.
Expand ...

I thought the same thing. Review that play, ref. See how bad you blew the call. It paid off. I don't think Baylor was in the bonus until late in the 2nd half after that.
 
UConn only had three fouls call on them in the 2nd half and Baylor only five fouls. Neither team got into the bonus in the 2nd half. It was almost if the refs turned a switch or were told, there were too many fouls called in the 1st half, so limit the amount of fouls called. Only kidding. However, I also wonder if the review of KML's foul did have an impact on how the refs called the game in the 2nd half. We'll never know.

Waquoit said:
I thought the same thing. Review that play, ref. See how bad you blew the call. It paid off. I don't think Baylor was in the bonus until late in the 2nd half after that.
Expand ...
 
msf22b said:
My wife became irate at some of the calls in the first half and asked me why doesn't Geno protest.
I explained that as terrible as they were, they were relatively evenly distributed.
Nothing much to be gained by throwing a tantrum...
Equal opportunity mal-officiating.
Expand ...
It was pretty bad both ways in the first half.
 
As to Geno's comment earlier about the fouls being called on the outside, but not for contact inside, I'm seeing Stef becoming exasperated at times. It has to be getting old to get continually pounded in the lane, yet get called for a foul when she matches the "intensity". Maybe I'm reading too much into her expressions, but she doesn't seem to have the same smile on her face, that we are used to seeing, regardless of the opponent or situation.
 
HuskyNan said:
Geno has said in the past that bad calls are a part of every game and that if the team is in the positon of needing a call to win, they probably don't deserve to win.
Expand ...
If a team is in the position where a referees decision may determine the outcome of a game, then two teams are in that position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
248
Guests online
1,524
Total visitors
1,772
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,068
Messages
4,380,895
Members
10,177
Latest member
silver fox


.
..
Top Bottom