UK vs UGA gamethread
- Thread starter Mgkcbb
- Start date
I think we can both agree that Louisville doesn’t have a top thirty team this year. They will do good to make the tournament
oh i agree
i just find it odd that we completely dominate a top 30 team in both polls and drop a spot
Their best win(s) are Indiana and Memphis. Plus, all I heard all year, and that leading up to the UK game was how bad they were. UL's no more a Top 30 team than IU is; a team they struggled to beat----at home. UGA is a much,much better team. Maybe outside of KU, the best team UK has played.
Again, though. You have to consider what teams below UK did. WHich again, IDK(what they did). I knw the conspiracy angle is much more fun. But hey, it is what it is. Like I said, IMO UK's at worst a Top 15 team....Probably. But we will know more here real soon.
Edit: Toook a peak at the poll. Arizona was one spot behind UK. But they did beat unbeaten, and then 3rd -ranked ASU. They moved up 3 spots(14th). They were the only team to jump UK. TCU fell 6 spots(10th to 16th). This after a loss to then #12 OU. Miami(Fla) stayed at 15th.
So what do you do? Keep UK at 16th? Moved them up a spot(for beating one decent team at home)?
Like I said, it's a product of what other teams do.
Last edited:
i agree they were not a top 30 team
but the people that voted disagreed with me and then did not reward UK for dominating the very team they voted top 30 in both polls
i just find that odd
Nothing odd really. If you look at it from a different perspective other than that of you feel UK is being slighted. Arizona was one spot behind UK. They beat the 3rd-ranked team in the country. So they jump UK. No one close to UK in the polls, lost. Do you move UK ahead of a 12-1 TCU team, who's only loss is to then #12 Oklahoma? In your opinion, who should UK be ahead of? TCU, Arizona, Miami? Maybe Purdue? How much of a jump do you think UK should've made by beating UL and UGA at home?
Now I can agree that maybe they shouldn't have dropped. But then again, that is predicated with what teams above them do. Like TTU losing to OU. How far do you drop then for losing to to a Top 15 team(#12)?
Like I said, the polls are more of what teams do, opposed to how good they really are.
JMO.
So now UCLA is decent? Funny. 99% of your home board, and a large majority of you on here felt otherwise(before and after). But now they are decent? If you guys would spend the enrgy you spend on creating conspiracy theories, toward enjoying your team, you'd probably enjoy basketball a lot more.
I don't give a shit about rankings, and UCLA blows, but losing to them on a neutral site game 2 days before Christmas is a little bit different than losing to fvcking Wofford at home.
I agree. Agree 100%. I just dont think sonme of you realize how the polls work. There is more than just one team, you know. If UK falls more than Duke-----its a conspiracy. But if UK moves up more than a Duke, UNC, etc, etc...its justified. The polls have a ton to do with what other teams either above you, or below you do. But hey, everything with some of you is a conspiracy.
A flop should be obvious, if you did not see contact, swallow the damn whistle. The Gabriel charge was called with the ref 4 feet away. The charge call is the most missed call made. No leeway is given to the offensive player, you can’t be going at full speed and stop on a dime.
Will you own up to the fact that calls are made because the ref is anticipating a foul? Just because some dude falls backwards don’t mean their was sufficient contact to make him fall backwards. If you can’t see contact, why are you blowing the whistle?
Really? I've seen this done a million times. For me personally, I usually do give leeway to offense. Only time , well not the only time, I call a charge is when I feel the offensive player has gained an advantage via the contact. Or if he's out of control. The charge, as is the block, is a needed part of the game, You cannot have guys running dudes over. A lot fo charges are the result of good, solid defense. Some are just lazy defense.
As for a flop being obvious.....meh, not really. It's not about not seeing the contact more as is it is determining how much there was, and what did it create. And even in some cases, where a kid does flop(makes the contact look worse) that doesn't mean its not a foul. In my game Friday night, I had a defensive player run right through a screen. Contact wasn't severe, or that bad. But the offensive player made it look as if he was hit by a truck. I still called a foul. Kid yelps---"He flopped". As did the coach. And I agreed. Conversation went something like this:
Coach: "Man Chris, he flopped like crazy. Contact wasn't that bad".
Me: "I agree. But the contact was still there. It doesn't matter how bad the contact was, there was still contact. You cannot run through a legally set screen".
Coach: If you feel it was a flop---why call it?
Me: Like I told you coach, you no matter how light the contact was, it still happened. And it's still illegal. You cannot run through a screener".
Coach: Ok. Fair enough.
I then spoke with the kid who indeed did some acting. Told him, "son I don't need that. You make that call hard for me to make. Do that again, and I'm not calling it".
Again,just b/c said player adds a little "umph" to the contact, doesn't make the contact not illegal.
Kentucky should most definitely be ranked ahead of A&M. They have a couple losses, one being a loss at home to an unranked team.
Sure I will. It happens. I've done it. That part of the game will never go away. Here is why. If you wait, wait and wait....then it comes off as a late whistle. When actually as an official, you;re only trying to determine if there was contact, how much, what did ti create, etc, etc...
As for anticipating, some of that is on the kids. Player drives the lane, defense is beaten, and instead of just giving the hoop, he whacks at said player. Whistle!! ANd in some instances, there was no contact....but in most, there is. If your beat, just move on. Don't put it on the official.
Not all contact is the same. BUT......if there is contact and a player loses the ball, falls down, etc, etc....it's going to be a foul. One of the things I do as an official is always protect the dribble, or the player with the ball. If there is contact, and it causes the player to lose his balance, lose the ball, changes his route, etc, etc...its got to be a foul. Because w/o the contact, odds are none of the baove happen. You have to protect the dribbler.
Now if said player is already off balance, or struggling, or out of control, that same contact now becomes less relevant. Becasue as an official, I cannot be 100% sure the contact, unless severe, caused said player to lose the ball, fall down, go OOB, etc, etc...
That is why I've alwasy said----not all contact is the same.
They lost AT Alabama. Their other loss is to #14 Arizona(67-64). They also beat #6 WVU by 23.
Why should UK be ranked ahead of A&M? If you believe that, you also feel they should be ranked ahead of Purdue, Miami(Fla), Arizona, TCU and UNC. You honestly feel UK's better than all those teams?
If you think that flop by the UConn player is anything but laughable, then you also need better training.
That's pretty pathetic and I can't believe you would even try to come up with a reason to justify that call.
As far as the ending to your hs game, a no call is the right call. Basketball is still a contact sport regardless of what some officials believe.
It is funny when non-refs try to lecture actual refs about reffing.
Do you non-lawyers try to lecture lawyers about the law?
Do you non-lawyers try to lecture lawyers about the law?
You don't have to be an official to be able to see a bad call. The two links I showed were bad calls and the flop by the UConn player is so bad that someone who has never watched a basketball game before would know it was ridiculous to call a foul there.
Comparing cbb officials to attorneys is an awful comparison btw.
What I can tell you about lawyers is this, if a lawyer is involved the only one that comes out good is the lawyer. The DA is a lawyer, the defense is a lawyer, the judge is a lawyer, the common man is screwed.
No, it isn't an awful comparison; you just THINK it is, because you've watched some basketball or played some basketball. Both are highly trained people with a wealth of experience in a field you might see a little bit of on TV, or which you might have a modicum of personal experience with, but that you in actuality know very little about.
But when you have people who have, as Borden pointed out, watched something from thirty different angles and from the high up broadcast angle and in replays, who are NOT seeing it from the ref point of view, and who really don't know ANYTHING about reffing... about the actual science and techniques of reffing... arguing with an actual, experienced, trained ref... it just gets a bit silly to see.
That's one take. An incredibly cynical one.
Another take is that I've really appreciated the lawyers who have worked for me, because they've been able to help me when I could not do something involving the law myself. I've had lawyers help me with houses, with wills, with lawsuits... with a bunch of things, and every time I've been thankful for it.
It's nice to have refs around to focus on the details of some calls. Other calls anyone can see.
There was a GREAT column on Duke Basketball Report for some time by a writer called "The Playcaller." He was a D1 ref who did some REALLY in depth analysis of individual games and calls, and about what was behind it all. As someone who has watched and played ball for a lot of years, it was eye opening.
Here is just one, about a specific play. You can always google "Dukebasketballreport the playcaller" and pull up more; they are generally good (if detailed) reads.
https://www.dukebasketballreport.co...he-playcaller-on-a-most-fascinating-situation
And yeah... listen to Borden. He does this for a living.
The refs made some bad calls in the UGA game. They overall were pretty spot on. Someone said there were only 3 fouls difference in the game on the two teams.
UK wins, others complain about calls. UK loses UK fans complain about the calls. Refs sometimes gets it right. Sometimes gets it wrong.
It's not a perfect science for refs. They try their best.
UK wins, others complain about calls. UK loses UK fans complain about the calls. Refs sometimes gets it right. Sometimes gets it wrong.
It's not a perfect science for refs. They try their best.
To defend officials that they are infallible is just dumb. Officials make calls they think are fouls. Sometimes they're way out of position, sometimes its just the angle, which may look like a foul from their angle and may not actually be one. Sometimes they make anticipatory calls when nothing actually occurs. Fouls are sometimes called when they should let the play continue. They're human. It's part of the game.
Now has there been cheating refs, absolutely. Are some calls bad, yes they are. Should common fouls be reviewable, no. Slows the game down too much. I would hope the refs that aren't very good, continually make bad calls, don't ref long... They don't belong in the game...
I've played in hs games where the refs cheated. It's obvious and not fun to participate in.
Now has there been cheating refs, absolutely. Are some calls bad, yes they are. Should common fouls be reviewable, no. Slows the game down too much. I would hope the refs that aren't very good, continually make bad calls, don't ref long... They don't belong in the game...
I've played in hs games where the refs cheated. It's obvious and not fun to participate in.
I don't think anyone, ever, has ever said refs are infallible. That would be a crazy extreme stance.
You had refs who were cheating?! That's nuts. How did you know? What was their motivation?
It is an absolutely moronic comparison. You're comparing understanding the rule book of a game to a profession that takes more to prepare/qualify for than 98% of the professions out there.
I'm not getting into "cheating refs" but to think that the average basketball fan calling out an obviously missed call is the same as some uneducated dolt arguing the law against a lawyer is the same thing is so freaking asinine.
Obviously you didn't actually watch the clip. The UConn player threw himself to the floor with zero effort from the defender and got the call. The camera was right behind the ref.
I don't care where you view it from, it was pathetic.
And since when do you have to be some specially trained official to recognize a bad call? I totally understand calls that are bang bang where you can make an argument either way, but this isn't one of those calls.
Watch the clip and get back to me.
Last edited:
Are we talking about the UConn final four game?? That was seriously the worst call I've ever seen. Like, ever.
Relax, tiger. It isn't some perfect analogy, but it is absolutely fine. And it has nothing to do with calling out a missed call. Its about finding something that we all have passing experience with, but no REAL experience with.
All of us have basic understandings of basketball and the law.
All of us have access to the rules for basketball and the law.
Few of us have any actual experience or deeper understanding of refereeing basketball or the law.
When people try to argue reffing with Borden, it is about the same as trying to argue the law with a lawyer. In the same way that people can say "I've watched a lot of basketball and seen refs blow their whistles!" or "I've played a lot of basketball so I know the rules!" I can argue that I understand "Stand your ground" laws, I can argue that I understand property laws, I can argue that I understand small claims court... hell, I've taken part in a few cases... but neither of us really get it like a ref or a lawyer does, and rather than argue when someone with the actual education and experience in the field chimes in, we'd do well to listen. That's it.
If it makes you feel better, compare reffing to ANY profession where lay people have some basic understanding of it but little to no actual, real experience with it. Teaching ("I've been in school!") Medicine ("I've been sick!) Military ("I know how to shoot guns!") Whatever. When that lay person argues with a professional, it usually ends up being a losing argument.
BTW, you DO realize that lawyers aren't some magical species, right? Being a lawyer does not take some amount of preparation that no other job on earth needs. Two years of schooling. That's it. And that's only because you need to get accredited by the bar association; if it wasn't for that, you could do it out of undergrad (although you'd be bad at it). There are a number of jobs where it takes you two years to really be able to do the job. Plenty where you don't, of course... but 98 percent is a bit of an overstatement.
Betting.
He said he had a high school ref cheating... that can't be for betting, no?
I played football and it happened in my jr year. We had 4 td's called back including the game winning one by myself. I was a defensive back. Instead of tackling the pass receiver, I just took the ball away from him. This happened on the hash line. I had a straight line path to the end zone. The refs, like on que called it back. Stated I stepped out of bounds. I wasn't even close to out of bounds. We were 2 pts down, less than 2 minutes to play. All the calls were ridiculous. Found out later they also had a few guys playing that had graduated.
Our coach told us after the game, no matter what we did on the field, we weren't going to win. The fix was in. This occurred a long, long time ago in galaxy far away. Stuff like that went on more than I realized. Especially in some of the smaller communities in Kentucky.
FTR, if you don't think some "dolts" THINK they have a truer understanding of the law than they actually do, trying watching an episode of Cops or Live PD. Laughing
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with an individual call. The UConn one, the ref couldn't see the UK player hand or maybe even a chunk of his arm, as they were blocked by the UConn player's body, and so when the guy went down he called it. Bad call, but it happens.
Borden is literally taking the time to explain how things sometimes happen with reffing, and you are yelling at him telling him that refs suck and you could do a better job and so on and so forth.
Of course there are bad calls. Of course we can see them at times when refs cannot. But when an actual ref explains how this stuff goes, and you respond with WHINING this and no-refs-can-spot-a-flop that and that you would do a better job than actual professional refs... come on now. You sound like a petulant, rustled kid.
Is "relax" code for "quit calling out my dumbass argument?"
Yes, you can know a basic law. You don't know, or have access to 100's of years of precedent with regards to the interpretation of the law. Believe it or not, the law happens to be a bit more complex than the rules of basketball. There is a reason you don't need a degree to be a referee, because it is much less difficult and requires way less training that the typical profession that DOES require a college degree. Refereeing isn't rocket science.
And yes, I am aware that lawyers aren't some special snowflake geniuses, you're the one who brought lawyers into the discussion. But its not just 'two-years of school". Thats like saying getting a Masters is "just 2 years of school", or getting a PHD is just "three years of school". Your undergrad is building towards your graduate degree as well. Trying to put referees on the same level as people with post graduate degrees is freaking laughable.
Just admit that your "you don't argue law with lawyers, don't argue with referees" argument is stupid.
Last edited:
Yelling? No, that's not the case here.
I get it, Borden is an actual official and the rest of us are obviously mouth breathing idiots that can't tell a good call from a bad call apparently.
But here's the deal, I'm not the only one saying it. I'm also allowed to have my own opinion and in MY opinion I feel some of these officials need better training and I feel like there should be some accountability.
I can't believe anyone can actually defend this call. You have to be joking.
http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Graphics/Officials/John_Higgins.gif
The rest of us are mouth breathing idiots? Where did I say that? You of course can have an opinion. If you just want to say there needs to be some system of ref accountability, just say that; many of us would agree to some extent. But you were the one who went with these giant dramatic statements about no refs ever being able to see flopping, and you being better at it than any ref, and that Borden is just whining, and all this other nonsense. Just make your point, man, and leave the histrionics out of it
Similar threads
