refs swallowing whistle at end of games

[WindsorHawk]

I'm sorry but I don't accept the excuse that a 7 footer doesn't have the hops to not dunk. I'm sorry but I think its nothing more than an excuse. The hoop is only 10 ft. that means at 7 foot tall your looking at having to get a little over 3 1/2 feet from the top of your head to get the ball into the hoop. I'd be willing to bet that at his height he can probably touch the rim, or get very close to it, flat footed. Sorry but I don't buy it.

Woody not dunking is getting way too much attention on this board IMO. If he uses his body properly, etc. he can score inside without dunking. Basabe missed a dunk in a recent game. Olaseni missed a dunk in a recent game. I think Basabe was attempting to dunk on a shot that ended up in Oglesby's hands against Michigan State. My point is that going up for a dunk is not a sure thing. Using the body, the rim, etc. is also effective.

 

[PCHawk]

I'm not saying its a choice. All I'm saying is that I don't buy the argument that a seven footer cannot throw it down. I simply don't buy the fact that "he cannot dunk", I think its more of a confidence/mentality that he's accepted going up through the ranks that as tall as he is lay ups will not be contested so it's safe. I'm not saying dunking is everything, but at 7 feet tall, I sure as hell would make sure it's part of my offensive arsenal.

I seriously doubt that any 7 footer could be athletic enough to play division 1 ball but not be able to dunk.

He can dunk. When no ones around and he has a head start. It's not like one day he woke up and he was 7'. He's been growing into his body his whole life. I'm pretty sure he's fully aware of what it takes for him to get a dunk down. It's funny that you believe its just never crossed his mind to dunk.

 

[PCHawk]

Iowa deserved to lose by going 15 minutes without a basket.

That's funny. I point out reasons why MSU deserved to lose and post a stupid pic saying I'm crying...then under the pick you state a reason why Iowa deserved to lose. I guess its not crying if you're bashing your own team.

 

[WindsorHawk]

That's funny. I point out reasons why MSU deserved to lose and post a stupid pic saying I'm crying...then under the pick you state a reason why Iowa deserved to lose. I guess its not crying if you're bashing your own team.

You're not a real fan, rational fan, competent fan, open minded fan...unless you accept that we aren't all that good, deserved to lose and the only real reason to watch the remaining games is for another opportunity to come on here and complain and/or be negative.

Sarcasm Alert!

 

[LG210]

Not true but believe what you want.

How in the world can it not be true?

 

[LG210]

Woody doesn't not dunk the ball because he takes it up weak. He doesn't dunk the ball because he can't jump. And when you get pushed from behind there isn't much you can do.

I think this is an accurate assessment.

Anecdotally, it has been my observation that 7-footers develop leg strength later than smaller players. Woody is an example of this. I think he will make significant improvement in leaping ability between now and his senior year.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Unfortunately the moral of the story is make plays earlier in the game so you do not leave it up the officials at the end. If you are not a blue blood program the chances of calls going in your favor at the end are not good

Perhaps, if you could forsee that no goal tending would be called on the very last play of the game. Otherwise, it all adds up to what happens at the end; the game is the sum of its parts. And at the end of regulation, Iowa made a game winning play that was not allowed to happen because the refs blew the obvious goal tending. Goal tending, people.

 

[libradawg]

I'm sorry but I don't accept the excuse that a 7 footer doesn't have the hops to not dunk. I'm sorry but I think its nothing more than an excuse. The hoop is only 10 ft. that means at 7 foot tall your looking at having to get a little over 3 1/2 feet from the top of your head to get the ball into the hoop. I'd be willing to bet that at his height he can probably touch the rim, or get very close to it, flat footed. Sorry but I don't buy it.

Cliched and even worse, fallacious reasoning. How about this? How about Gesell had an easy layup at the end of OT to make any previous mistakes inconsequential?? Hmmmmm? Why not? You're saying to make good plays now to fend off mistakes later, I'm saying we made the good play so the earlier play no longer matters. Problem: IT WAS STOLEN FROM US.

And everybody who says that is wrong. Nobody's disputing that's a foul. Nobody. Put East Lansing on the polygraph machine, they probably admit it anyway. I hate the Packers, but the replacement officials screwed them. Refs let MSU foul us on every trip, they let FIVE MSU players hide out with four fouls while nailing McCabe, our third best jump-shooter, they let Gesell get mugged. All of those needed to be different. None were. If *ANY* of them were different, it makes up for earlier mistakes. Not vice versa.

 

[libradawg]

And Woodbury can dunk fine with his wingspan alone. Who CARES about these stupid dunks?! I can't fathom this. Woodbury's developing post moves, which happen to involve using the glass. He's a high efficiency shooter, so going glass has been an exceptional attribute for him. So when the paint is crowded and he suddenly has the ball to make an instinctive move, his first inclination is to use the glass. He gets fouled while making a good deal of those.

BTW, the last time we changed a players nature and his instincts as we knew it, we at least didn't have to worry about dunking! I'm talking about one Melsahn Basabe. Fran's preference this time is to DEVELOP the player, not ruin him irreparably.

 

[GVGiant44]

It happens in every sport, unfortunately, perhaps with tacit approval from the leagues in which they officiate to avoid another Jim Bain incident. Contrary to what you may believe, referees do not want to decide games. It can be argued their calls during the contest contributed to the outcome, and that certainly can be the case. But it's a brave -- and unique (some would say crazy) -- official who makes a potentially game-deciding call as time runs out.

Look, an official's job is to police the game. A violation is a violation. And down the stretch, if you call a foul (or whatever), you'd better get it right.

What, as a former official, drives me crazy are officials calling things that either did not happen or getting information wrong (like the player's number committing the foul). Bain did at least one or both of those things.

But the most famous example to me remains the ham-handed officiating effort by the Conference USA officials in the 2006 Outback bowl. The coup-de-grace was calling Iowa off-side on a (successful) on-side kick, when clearly no one was even close to being off-side.

For an official to swallow his whistle so that the official "doesn't decide the game" is going to happen, and may even be understandable, even if it is a cop-out (and it is). But to interject yourself into a game by calling something that didn't happen may be the ultimate in arrogance.

 

[libradawg]

Look, an official's job is to police the game. A violation is a violation. And down the stretch, if you call a foul (or whatever), you'd better get it right.

What, as a former official, drives me crazy are officials calling things that either did not happen or getting information wrong (like the player's number committing the foul). Bain did at least one or both of those things.

But the most famous example to me remains the ham-handed officiating effort by the Conference USA officials in the 2006 Outback bowl. The coup-de-grace was calling Iowa off-side on a (successful) on-side kick, when clearly no one was even close to being off-side.

For an official to swallow his whistle so that the official "doesn't decide the game" is going to happen, and may even be understandable, even if it is a cop-out (and it is). But to interject yourself into a game by calling something that didn't happen may be the ultimate in arrogance.

I *NEVER* got this!! Never understood the reasoning. Are they saying that NOT calling a foul, one that clearly and obviously disabled the basket from scoring, is "deciding the game" any less?? There's no difference in the officials' roles in the game whether they call it or avoid calling it, so GETTING THE F*****G THING RIGHT seems to be the best option, wouldn't ya think??

And BTW I always thought the worst play in that football game was penalizing the wrong team for 15-yard Facemask. Especially when everybody knows a receiver will never get one while blocking.

 

[HawkeyeTech]

I personally prefer the phrase "stuck their whistles up their a$$" to "swallowed their whistles".

 

[PCHawk]

I *NEVER* got this!! Never understood the reasoning. Are they saying that NOT calling a foul, one that clearly and obviously disabled the basket from scoring, is "deciding the game" any less?? There's no difference in the officials' roles in the game whether they call it or avoid calling it, so GETTING THE F*****G THING RIGHT seems to be the best option, wouldn't ya think??

And BTW I always thought the worst play in that football game was penalizing the wrong team for 15-yard Facemask. Especially when everybody knows a receiver will never get one while blocking.

That one was bad but the 12 men on the field no call was right there with it. Guy ran right by the guy that should have called i

 

[LawVHawk]

Look, an official's job is to police the game. A violation is a violation. And down the stretch, if you call a foul (or whatever), you'd better get it right.

What, as a former official, drives me crazy are officials calling things that either did not happen or getting information wrong (like the player's number committing the foul). Bain did at least one or both of those things.

But the most famous example to me remains the ham-handed officiating effort by the Conference USA officials in the 2006 Outback bowl. The coup-de-grace was calling Iowa off-side on a (successful) on-side kick, when clearly no one was even close to being off-side.

For an official to swallow his whistle so that the official "doesn't decide the game" is going to happen, and may even be understandable, even if it is a cop-out (and it is). But to interject yourself into a game by calling something that didn't happen may be the ultimate in arrogance.

I know what you are saying and I agree with you in principle. The game should be called the same way from the first tip to the final horn. Although every good sports official will also tell you that you need to read the game -- what maybe wasn't a foul in the first minute or so becomes one in the 14th minute if play is heating up, if play is getting chippy, if you need to introduce a break into the play to allow the players to cool off and drop the emotional temperature a bit.

As far as making the critical call on the last drive or at the last second, it becomes increasingly unlikely that's going to happen. Most officials will feel their blow of the whistle should not be the potentially deciding factor. While some might agree that Valentine may or may not have stuck his hand through the net on Mel's tip-in at the end of regulation in the MSU game, can you imagine the ****-fest if that had been called? It's just the reality of the way sports contests are called. And has already been mentioned, there may be some guidance from the NCAA referee's committee and/or the leagues to call only the most egregious of fouls at the whistle. Seriously.

 

[Biggusblockus]

MSU "conditions" the officials better than any team I have ever seen. They count on the fact that the refs will simply stop calling everything because if they didn't the game would never get going. They have mastered the art.

 

[Knight78]

It drives me nuts that refs just pack at the end of games and "let the players decide the game". In basketball you don't always bring your A game, and when you don't, players need to step up at the end and make a play.

Basabe did that. He got position, got the rebound, and went up strong. The shot didn't fall because he was drilled on the back of the arm from behind. Sometimes you have to play through contact and make the shot anyway. But when you get hit from behind on the arm as you're shooting, you're not going to make it.

Basabe has 2 free throws to make 1 for the win if the refs didn't decide to become spectators. Not only do they not call the foul, but they let the obvious goaltend go too.

Same thing in overtime. Gesell gets hammered and flies 10 feet out of bounds but the refs once again swallow the whistle. That one didn't bother be as much cause Gesell wasn't making both and even if he did, we would still have to win in double OT.

If any one of the refs call that blatant goaltend we are all on here raving about how the hawks finally made it happen in a close game. After last nights games we would be tied for 2nd with a 2 game lead on Wisconsin and 2 games back on Michigan. It's amazing how much 2 blown calls on 1 play can change things.

I would have liked out chances in a second overtime. Who was it that Gesell would have been fouled by? I don't remember who it was, but if it was Costello, Harris, Appling, Valentine or Byrd it would have been their 5th. If it gets to 2 OT, we win by attrition if nothing else. They foul and the guys I listed here would have been out of the game. Iowa had McCabe gone and Woody with 4; no one else had more than 2 fouls.

 

[Knight78]

Should have never come down to the last shot either time.

If you go 15 minutes without a FG and miss 13 FT's you don't deserve to win the game.

You know, I'm getting tired of hearing that "15 minutes without a FG" thing. Our last FG in the second half was when McCabe made a 3pt shot at 9:57. You do, of course, realize that MSU only made 4 FGs and we made 11 FT after McCabe's 3 pointer, right? Yes we missed 13 FT, but we made 30. Compare that to MSU missing 9 FT but only making 11.

We lost the game because we shot poorly from the field. We normally shoot 47%, but against MSU we shot 37%. That's about 5 shots that we missed that we normally make. Yes, MSU defense had something to do with that stat, but it wasn't all their "good defense", it was our inability to make layups and putbacks and our decision making to actually SHOOT instead of pass up open shots.

 

[22hawkeyes]

this is my first time in this thread. I have not read it yet.....The title made me think I might walk into a joke with refs, and swallowing, and Izzo, and ends.... I sure hope not. Now I will proceed to read the thread.

 

[libradawg]

You know, I'm getting tired of hearing that "15 minutes without a FG" thing. Our last FG in the second half was when McCabe made a 3pt shot at 9:57. You do, of course, realize that MSU only made 4 FGs and we made 11 FT after McCabe's 3 pointer, right? Yes we missed 13 FT, but we made 30. Compare that to MSU missing 9 FT but only making 11.

We lost the game because we shot poorly from the field. We normally shoot 47%, but against MSU we shot 37%. That's about 5 shots that we missed that we normally make. Yes, MSU defense had something to do with that stat, but it wasn't all their "good defense", it was our inability to make layups and putbacks and our decision making to actually SHOOT instead of pass up open shots.

I disagree. Not with the analysis, that was spot-on. With the whole "If you're open, shoot it" thing. First and foremost we don't have great perimeter shooters, but also because that's not the style we were using to our advantage. What, we get them behind the eight ball with FIVE players with four fouls, shooting penalty and then bonus with 10+ left? We'd be astoundingly insane to start settling for jumpers. In order for that to not win us the game going away, 3 things had to happen: Refs stop blowing whistles on definite fouls, Refs protecting the 4 foul guys rather than disqualifying them down the stretch, and us missing ONE more free throw than we should have. Any one of those things go our way, it's a win. We had no reason to think it wouldn't.

So yes, we did hurt ourselves quite a bit but two of those were reliant on factors outside our control, which illustrates how STUPID the idea is that we didn't do enough to make a call or two irrelevant. We did perfectly. Refs stopped calling. One foul on one guy who had one left is all we wanted, we forced that one guy to foul, it wasn't called, MSU ball in transition. I can't fathom somebody saying we were our own worst enemy here.

Also keep in mind that's a style thing. Some teams bomb away, we run. We're lauded for depth, length and transition. It only makes sense we run. So yes those shots may have been open, but that's *settling* for us. We force other teams to settle for jumpers. Not us. And again, I can't say this enough, our philosophy drew all the contact in the world.

 

[PCHawk]

I would have liked out chances in a second overtime. Who was it that Gesell would have been fouled by? I don't remember who it was, but if it was Costello, Harris, Appling, Valentine or Byrd it would have been their 5th. If it gets to 2 OT, we win by attrition if nothing else. They foul and the guys I listed here would have been out of the game. Iowa had McCabe gone and Woody with 4; no one else had more than 2 fouls.

It was appling that would have been gonzo. Didn't even think about that.