PDA

View Full Version : ACC Sports Journal on GU-Wake



Section 116
12-07-2009, 12:10 PM
Here's an intersting take on the GU-Wake game from Denny Kuiper at the ACC Sports Journal (who knew)! Regarding point 2-B, I was sitting straight up from the basket in my usual 116 seat and that was a great call by Gaudio out of the timeout. Frankly we were caught flat footed. Kuiper makes a lot of good points:

http://www.accsports.com/articles/200912066644/kuipers-3-pointer-wake-gonzaga.php

CDC84
12-07-2009, 12:17 PM
from the article......


Iím just wondering: why did Gonzaga stay in the zone so long? The Bulldogs came out playing man-to-man defense and had considerable success. They switched to zone, and initially had success, but after Wake started to carve it up, Gonzaga stayed with it for a long period of time. Why not go back to man-to-man defense early in the game? In fact, when Gonzaga switched back to man-to-man with about 6-7 minutes left in the game, it started to make its run.

seasontixholder
12-07-2009, 12:21 PM
1. The zone attempted to hide BK's defensive inabilities.

2. I thought is was a mistake not substituting our defensive players earlier after we had approached them score-wise. The problem was not scoring or energy, it was getting stops. During that late timeout, that was the discussion in the seats around us. The personnel that we had on that defensive side made the Aminu play outrageously easy.

3. Matt Bouldin was deliberately fouled harder on one play than what Harris delivered. Not the late one, the earlier one. He was blasted. Where was the coach's crocodile tears?

ZagNative
12-07-2009, 12:39 PM
Is this the one you're talking about?

http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2009/12/05/srx_gu_vs_wake_forest_9_t450.jpg
Weaver giving Matt one to the chops?

tobizag
12-07-2009, 12:41 PM
someone please help me understand the rules regarding intentional fouls.

when fouling bouldin with 3.7 seconds left, it was clear that the strategy of the team was to foul. in other words, they were going to break the rules of allowable defensive strategy by intentionally causing physical contact with matt. not only this, but they did so after matt had a clear path ahead of him (the defender wrapped him up with two hands from behind with no play on the ball.)

why are these late game fouls not called intentional? i may be alone, but it drives me crazy. if the ncaa wants to allow these late game intentional fouls as strategy, short of excessive contact, then they should change the terminology surrounding these fouls so that the common fan (myself) can differentiate. the name implies that the violation is dependent on intent, not amount of force. the rule may state otherwise, but the name suggests as much.

someone please help me out with this.

tobizag
12-07-2009, 12:42 PM
Is this the one you're talking about?

http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2009/12/05/srx_gu_vs_wake_forest_9_t450.jpg
Weaver giving Matt one to the chops?

....ridiculous

seasontixholder
12-07-2009, 12:50 PM
Yes, thank you. I had a great view, and the defender not only wanted the shot, he wanted Matt and gave him extra juice with the whole body after the photo. It was NOT a case of stumbling awkwardly, it had twice the intent of Harris'.

seasontixholder
12-07-2009, 12:55 PM
The Wake staff actually was a little slow spotting BK's weakness. I kept waiting for them to begin punishing Few's move. (Few intimately knows it so that is not a surprise that he stayed in zone so long.)

But once they did - as a poster in another thread noted - they kept taking advantage of it.

TM27
12-07-2009, 01:07 PM
Diff was that McFloppin sold the Elias shove as an assualt. Matt wore the much harder foul. Had he fallin' down and pretended to be dead he would have gotten the flagrant.

Did I mention I hate flopping? It is very apparent to everyone other than the refs on the floor, and what I learned yesterday, those that havent played the game. Both hard fouls, both are fine by me, the difference was the acting involved...

CDC84
12-07-2009, 01:36 PM
I don't think that Weaver foul was intentional, but it was borderline flagrant.

If you want to know what an intentional foul is, see the play when GU was down by 3 and Bouldin was fouled to keep him from shooting a 3 pointer. The Wake player didn't even make a play for the basketball. Even Lavin pointed this out. Of course Wake was really intentionally fouling in that situation, but according to the rules, you need to at least make a play for the basketball.

omahazag
12-07-2009, 01:39 PM
I don't think that Weaver foul was intentional, but it was borderline flagrant.

If you want to know what an intentional foul is, see the play when GU was down by 3 and Bouldin was fouled to keep him from shooting a 3 pointer. The Wake player didn't even make a play for the basketball. Even Lavin pointed this out. Of course Wake was really intentionally fouling in that situation, but according to the rules, you need to at least make a play for the basketball.

BINGO - without question that foul should have been called intentional.

tobizag
12-07-2009, 01:49 PM
http://img.fannation.com/images/ap/2009/12/05/20/200912052018731235981-p2-660x660.jpg

i know it's a still shot, but that looks pretty intentional to me...

i should get over this. it's just going to eat me up.

beat augustana.

lothar98zag
12-07-2009, 01:58 PM
how many times are "intentionally unintentional" fouls near the end of games actually called intentional?

I don't think this is in the top 10 of "things to simmer over" from the WF game, but maybe it's just me...

tobizag
12-07-2009, 02:06 PM
how many times are "intentionally unintentional" fouls near the end of games actually called intentional?

I don't think this is in the top 10 of "things to simmer over" from the WF game, but maybe it's just me...

lothar, i agree (though it seems i don't as i keep talking about it)...it's just that since it happened in our game, it got me thinking and the more i thought about it the more i was bothered. i don't think this cost us the game...make our ft's and rebound more effectively, and we win. plain and simple.

but, after having read the rules, it seems to me that each time we see a play like this where a team is stopping the clock without a play on the ball, the refs should be calling an intentional foul.

i suppose i sort of hijacked the thread, but given that the article mentioned that strategy as a key to the victory for WF, i found it relevant.

ncaa rules (http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Basketball_Rules_2008-09fb2fc956-7592-4877-993e-dae20a6f90ed.pdf)

pg 71, Section 29, Art. 2d

CDC84
12-07-2009, 02:26 PM
I really feel that photos like these should be forwarded to the conference's head of officials (in this case, the Big 10). I don't care which teams are playing the game. I'm not saying the refs should be suspended or anything, but it needs to be pointed out to them from above that they fouled up, and what they should focus on in the future. How else are the refs supposed to get better at their job? Unfortunately, since almost all conference heads are ex-referees, they don't have the guts and objectivity to provide such helpful criticism.

Zag4Hire
12-07-2009, 02:33 PM
Was when Butler on Georgia pushed Jeremy in the back extremely hard and could have easily hurt him back in 2008. Butler was T'd up and tossed. The game was pretty much done but the refs were preventing any retaliation and it was a very dirty foul. That was the last tech and toss I can remember.

Even after the replay and subsequent Lavin blasting, I didn't think that was enough to get Zie German tossed. Would a warning to both teams and a technical sufficed? Often the case. Furthermore, as most have pointed out, how was that a foul on Bouldin? Which ref called it because the one in the background never made that motion...he did the one hand up to signify a 3 pt attempt and then put both hands up after he sunk the basket.

sonuvazag
12-07-2009, 02:52 PM
The way intentional fouls are called is troubling because when a player like Matt avoids a defender and keeps the ball out of reach, he should be able to keep the ball live. I don't even understand the rules in the NBA where they can foul the player at any time for any reason.

surfmonkey89
12-07-2009, 04:08 PM
The amazing thing about that last picture is that it shows the ref clearly looking directly at the play.

And he still "missed" the call.

WallaWallaZag
12-07-2009, 04:13 PM
refs obviously don't interpret the rulebook literally/directly at all times...it seems that the intentional foul at the end of games is one of these situations. it seems to be pretty consistent, so i don't have that big a problem with the non-call.

the call seems to be made most often when preventing breakaway dunks...

Hoopaholic
12-07-2009, 07:27 PM
he was aweful the entire night...starting with changing the foul on Aminu to some other person who was not even on the court after giving it Aminu who was the person who did the foul (gotta love TIVO)

changing the clock at the end by running off 6 seconds instead of 3 seconds (gotta love TIVO)

Looking squarely at the over the back by Aminu over Arop with aminute to go that was converted to points

Looking squarely at a CLEAR travel by the three point shooter at the top of the key with 3 minutes to go...caught the ball, dragged his left foot about 2 feet, stopped then hopped to square himself up..clear advantage travell that he ignored

I hope we never see him again....but now on to Augustana and a good team game