• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Home cookin'

GrizFan10 said:
The missed calls on 2 obvious goal-tendings later in the game, by Sac. St. on UM shots/bunnies, were far more important than the official scorer's goof up on the point. Had the refs called even one of the goal-tendings right, the game would have been over much earlier. (Note that there was a third possible goal-tending by Sac. St., on a put back over a Griz who was up, in perfect position, and waiting for the ball to get out of the cylinder.)

While the scorer's goof up was unfortunate, it had nothing to do with the outcome of the game--especially in relation to the overall piss-poor reffing, most of which went against the Griz. As for "home cooking", there has not been a scoring mistake for at least 27 years at UM.


.
Click to expand...


uhhh, ok. Well I specifically recall a game when the Griz apparently lost to a D2 school and they had to bring the teams back out of the locker-rooms after Kim Briggeman among others pointed out the final score was wrong and should have been tied . The D2 had already celebrated and their jerseys were covered from dousing each other with water or whatever. The Griz ended up winning in OT. Check your records, Mr. 27 year Historian.

The old-guys running the clock and official book get the score wrong all the time and need to have it corrected.

To say OUR scorekeepers having the score completely wrong is justified by neutral refs missing a couple calls is ridiculous. Why don't they just rig the score every time the Griz get screwed. That is one the stupidest things I've read here. It ABSOLUTELY affected the outcome of the game.
 
I watched the game on the net last night, and while yes, they definately blew the goaltending with 40 seconds left (that was a truly awful call...the ball was shown on the reply to have already hit the backboard, was in the cylinder, and was on the way down...how do you miss ALL THREE?), however, that's technically a judgement call.

Marking down a free throw as missed when it's made is INEXCUSABLE....what the hell is the guy watching? I think it does make a difference in how the final five minutes are played, but there's nothing that can be done.

Again, I agree if the refs call the goaltend (I couldn't really see the other one everyone is talking about) that would be two more points, but again, the problem is that everyone in the building, including most likely the Montana coaches, knew he hit both free throws.

Interestingly, the stats people have him missing the first free throw, as they can't have him missing the second free throw, since they would have to assign a rebound (instead of the deadball rebound), showing further proof that the scorer got it wrong.

ISU benefits greatly from that one, so we'll take it, but that scorer should feel horrible at this point, because Freeman hit both free throws...I watched him hit them on the video feed.

SAC gets screwed once a year (last year when Weber scored after the buzzer and they counted it, leading to Jenkins getting suspended), so this must have been their one.....amazing.

Good luck against ORU.....I hope you guys win by 20 (but we'd all take a one-point win too).

BBB
 
A couple calls my patoot zirg. They missed calls all night long and them goal tending calls were ridiculous. The Grizz should have blowed the Hornets out of the gym if it wasn't for these 3 bozos. And why does so many refs have it in for Mike Chavez. I have seen a couple games now where they call bull crap calls against him which cuts down on his playing time because of foul trouble. And I counted 4 goal tending calls. One when the dude touched the net in the first half. Ddefensive player can't do that. Grizz should of won by at least 20.
 
Home cookin' my ass.

The Grizzlies should have won the game by 20, but the referees kept Sac State in the game. They missed two obvious goaltending calls and missed a call on the Sac State baseline where the Hornet player was out of bounds by at least eighteen inches. The refs were incredibly inconsistent – they’d call ticky-tack stuff on one end and let’ em brawl on the other end. And I hate to sound like a whiner, but most of the bad calls/no calls went against the Griz.

Overall, I was not impressed by Sac State. They have some good athletes, but they are undsiciplined. That sounds like a surefire recipe for losing close games.
 
yeah just shows the delusional flu is at epidemic levels. lol

Bengal-you see it exactly how I do. I don't think anyone else is grasping the point.
 
kevraid said:
I guess we now know how steeler fans feel lol
Click to expand...

Get over it. There was only one blown call. The 'blocking' call on Hasselbeck. If you dont have NFL Network channel, get it. Otherwise, quit with the butt-hurt cries already.
 
One thing in defense of SAC getting only four assists is UM's stats are notorious in basketball as not getting everything correct for the visitors....case in point the ISU game earlier this year, where they gave Millien four blocks, and the coaches went to the SIDs and had them credit Millien with seven blocks instead.

Usually road teams are short changed on three stats, assists and blocks, and to a lesser extent steals, and that's just because they aren't familiar with a team or their tendencies, and they don't pay attention quite as much to the last pass.

If you look at most teams, they have more assists at home than on the road, so my guess is the probably had more than four assists, but even if they doubled it to eight, it's still not good.

BBB
 
BigBengalBacker said:
One thing in defense of SAC getting only four assists is UM's stats are notorious in basketball as not getting everything correct for the visitors....case in point the ISU game earlier this year, where they gave Millien four blocks, and the coaches went to the SIDs and had them credit Millien with seven blocks instead.

Usually road teams are short changed on three stats, assists and blocks, and to a lesser extent steals, and that's just because they aren't familiar with a team or their tendencies, and they don't pay attention quite as much to the last pass.

If you look at most teams, they have more assists at home than on the road, so my guess is the probably had more than four assists, but even if they doubled it to eight, it's still not good.

BBB
Click to expand...

If you think any school gets perfect stats during the course of the game you are sadly mistaken, ISU included. Have you not noticed the disclaimers that the stats are unofficial? The film is generally reviewed postgame to get the stats correct.

To say Sac would have had a ton of assists had it been a dif stat crew is ludicrous. The OFFICIAL BSC stats confirm it. SAC is second to last in the BSC in assists, trailing only WSU. Montana is 1st, ISU is 6th. I guess more than one school is screwing the Hornets huh?
 
mslacat: Speaking of paper, go cheer on your paper champions!!!!!!


:finger: :finger: :finger: :finger:
 
Mslacat said:
The new Griz Motto:

If you can not beat them on the court beat'em on paper!! :shocked:
Click to expand...

Pretty sad mslacat, your team can't even do that and your smack is weak, kind of like your team finishes games.
 
Mslacat said:
The new Griz Motto:

If you can not beat them on the court beat'em on paper!! :shocked:
Click to expand...

c'mon Mslacat, this isnt the smack board. so I gotta say... you're smarter than that
 
BigBengalBacker said:
One thing in defense of SAC getting only four assists is UM's stats are notorious in basketball as not getting everything correct for the visitors....case in point the ISU game earlier this year, where they gave Millien four blocks, and the coaches went to the SIDs and had them credit Millien with seven blocks instead.

Usually road teams are short changed on three stats, assists and blocks, and to a lesser extent steals, and that's just because they aren't familiar with a team or their tendencies, and they don't pay attention quite as much to the last pass.

If you look at most teams, they have more assists at home than on the road, so my guess is the probably had more than four assists, but even if they doubled it to eight, it's still not good.

BBB
Click to expand...

I am not dis-counting your getting short-changed on stats on the road theory, but Sac pretty-much scored every point on lay-ups or 1-on-1 play. I don't think they deserved many more, if any.

You may be correct about Slim Milien's blocks at Missoula, but I think road teams have better luck in Missoula getting stats over most BSC schools. I've found ISU, MSU and NAU have short-shanged us on stats at times. I have a lot of confidence in PSU and Weber's stats. Not sure about EWU and Sac. But like you said, road teams will general not get the benefit of the doubt as much as the home team will just about anywhere you go.
 
DoctorBBall said:
the game shouldn't have even been that close. the refs missed 2 defensive and 1 offensive goaltending calls on sac state with changed the game completely
Click to expand...
There were actually two goal tends, one foul on a layup and a jersey tugging incident that would have been intentional if it was called. So all in all it was about a ten point game and never should have been that close. As normal, the officiating was absolutely horrible again last night. I can tell you that the same refs are coming in several times a year and when you can tell before the games who the ones that struggle are then you know that the game is going to have some questionable calls. It is tough to sit and watch games that the refs are being that bad at. I know that they are not going to make every call correct, but there are three of them on the court and they should be able to get 90% of them correct. I don't see it being that close. I see about 75% and that is not good enough as a fan of any team.
 
Seems to me that when we made our road trip to Northern Arizona and Sac State earlier in the year that Krysko had an absolute fit with the time clock. Maybe we were just getting even. :naughty:
 
The only time I've ever heard of anything bad regarding ISU's stats was on a play in Poky in 2001 when a Griz receiver got hit making a catch at the sideline and went careening into the Griz bench and was hurt. The stat crew had no clue who caught the ball, and took an educated guess, and Jon Kasper actually called the stat crew out on it.

I remember Frank the SID being pissed about that because he checked with Guffey, and he couldn't tell who caught it either.

I know the ISU SID has done several national tournaments, and I think he is the only conference SID who does the stats himself, instead of having a crew or an assistant. I sit right near him at games sometimes....he's a sharp cookie. Not to say the others aren't, but he's anal about his stats.

Case in point, and he and I have talked about this...say Andrew Strait takes a shot and misses, and as Al Beye goes up for the rebound, the whistle blows because Chavez pushed Beye in the back, and the ball lands on the court (Chavez is called because Big Sky refs ALWAYS call Chavez for a foul). Most places give the rebound to Beye since he was the one fouled, but the correct ruling is actually a defensive dead ball rebound, since the stat book says you can't assign rebounds on the assumption that Beye was going to get it....that's why ISU games have defensive dead ball rebounds, and no one else ever does.

My whole point to that rant was that he's pretty good at the stats....better than most actually. When the NCAA Tournament comes near him, CBS usually has him do stats for the TV broadcast.

Gotta defend my SID LOL.

BBB
 
Source: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

Goaltending is discussed in two "rules" and 3 "sections"

4-32
9-15
9-16

Rule 4 DEFINITIONS

Section 32. Goaltending
Art. 1. Goaltending shall have occured when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met:
a. The ball is in its downward flight,
b. The entire ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder.
Art. 2. It is goaltending to touch the ball outside the cylinder during a free throw, regardless of whether the free throw is on its upward or downward flight.

RULE 9 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES

Section 15. Basket Interference and Goaltending
Art. 1. A player shall commit neither basket interference nor goaltending.
Art. 2. The ball shall be considered to be within the basket when any part
of the ball is below the cylinder and the level of the ring.
Art. 3. A player may have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when this contact continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, in such action, the player touches the basket.

Section 16. Basket-Interference and Goaltending Penalties
Art. 1. When the violation is at the basket of the opponent of the offending player, the offended team shall be awarded:
a. One point for basket interference or one point and an indirect
technical foul for goaltending when during a free throw.
b. Two points when during a two-point field-goal try.
c. Three points when during a three-point field-goal try.
Art. 2. The crediting of the score and subsequent procedure shall be the same as when the awarded score results from the ball going through the basket, except that the official shall hand/bounce the ball to a player of the team entitled to the throw-in.
Art. 3. When the violation is at a team’s own basket, no points shall be scored and the ball shall be awarded to the offended team at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.
A.R. 23. B1 touches the ball while a throw-in is in the cylinder. RULING: Basket interference. Team A shall be awarded two points. Team B shall be awarded the ball for a throw-in, as after a goal scored, except that an official shall hand the ball to a player of Team B and the player or a teammate shall make the throw-in. (See Rule 7-5.1.)
A.R. 24. The ball is in flight during a three-point field-goal try by A1 when a period expires. After the expiration of time and while the ball is rolling on the ring, B1 taps it into the basket. RULING: Basket interference by B1. Three points shall be awarded to A1 because of the basket interference.
A.R. 25. The ball enters the basket during a field-goal try by A1. Before the ball is in flight for the try, A1 is fouled. A2 touches the ring while the ball is in the basket. RULING: Basket interference on A2. The goal shall be canceled. A1 shall be awarded two free throws because of the foul.
Art. 4. When the violation results from touching the ball while it is in the basket after entering from below, no points shall be scored and the ball shall be awarded to the opponent at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.
Art. 5. When there is a violation by both teams, play shall be resumed by awarding the ball to the team entitled to the alternating-possession throwin at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.

Summary: Yeah, it was goaltending (both times).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top