Refs
- Thread starter RUfromSoCal?
- Start date
I don't think this crowd exists. I still think it's unlikely the refs are intentionally screwing Rutgers.
a) is that the same as intentionally protecting the conference big boys? are you saying that doesn't exist?
b) so, you're saying there was ZERO chance, right around the time RU hit #11 in the polls, just maybe the refs (even subconsciously) wanted to remind certain players who ran the conference?
c) yes, "that" crowd - clearly exists...
(a) I mostly doubt it, at least consciously. The refs don't even work for the Big Ten only. No idea why they would care.
(b) Wouldn't ever put anything at zero, but basically zero yes.
(c) Nah. You're strawmanning people hard. I think in the vast majority of cases the refs are just trying to do their jobs properly and are subject to whatever unconscious biases they have (favoring the home team to some degree, probably favoring better teams to some degree, letting a player's reputation influence the way they see plays - see the differences in reffing between even Mathis and Young who are both on our team).
(b) Wouldn't ever put anything at zero, but basically zero yes.
(c) Nah. You're strawmanning people hard. I think in the vast majority of cases the refs are just trying to do their jobs properly and are subject to whatever unconscious biases they have (favoring the home team to some degree, probably favoring better teams to some degree, letting a player's reputation influence the way they see plays - see the differences in reffing between even Mathis and Young who are both on our team).
Did you read the same response I did? How can what fluoxetine wrote be read as "they are totally impartial"?
I jump on refs plenty. They're not automatons - they're human and have biases. They're going to blow calls based on any number of conscious and subconscious factors. Sometimes their biases end up hurting one team more than the other, and we're at times on the receiving end of that. That doesn't mean they're universally "out to get us", though - or that there's some conspiracy happening to keep Rutgers down.
And there are almost certainly some bad actors out there who are of the "respect mah authoritah" type or the "I need the spotlight" type or the "I don't like this player" type - but they're the exception, not the rule.
revenue sports are above all else entertainment, and the refs know their role in promoting the product. I do not think for a minute they protect the blue bloods, conference big dogs, etc.....but they do call things in favor of the top players for publicity, highlights and ratings (Zion's love fest was sickening, worse than Garza's) just like in the NBA and this indirectly does tend to help the bluebloods because that's where the top players usually are.
One big issue is consistency....
If Player A makes a spectacular stop at the rim against an opposing star.....
a) if Player A is known as a star and a defensive stopper.... great player made a great play, maybe with some incidental contact
b) if Player A is an unknown or has a reputation for fouling.... it's unlikely he made that stop without that contact, I'm blowing the whistle
If Player A makes a great post move and knocks past a smaller defender....
a) If Player A is known as a star and offensive force.... great player made a great play, and simply outclassed/outmuscled the defender
b) If Player A is an unknown or not known as an offensive force.... he got advantage by using his size to force through the defender's established position, I'm blowing the whistle
Cockburn and Garza get the first half of those scenarios, while Johnson usually gets the second.
If Player A makes a spectacular stop at the rim against an opposing star.....
a) if Player A is known as a star and a defensive stopper.... great player made a great play, maybe with some incidental contact
b) if Player A is an unknown or has a reputation for fouling.... it's unlikely he made that stop without that contact, I'm blowing the whistle
If Player A makes a great post move and knocks past a smaller defender....
a) If Player A is known as a star and offensive force.... great player made a great play, and simply outclassed/outmuscled the defender
b) If Player A is an unknown or not known as an offensive force.... he got advantage by using his size to force through the defender's established position, I'm blowing the whistle
Cockburn and Garza get the first half of those scenarios, while Johnson usually gets the second.
This is a referee trying to get a make-up call against Nashville because of a weak penalty called earlier in favor of Nashville. I would imagine most fans don't have an issue with trying to make up previously bad calls if it results in a more even game.
A while back the New York Times printed a study someone did on balls and strike calls in MLB...ones that had been called incorrectly. Interestingly enough it found that big-name pitchers got more of those wrong calls go their way than did other pitchers. Having read that article, it's not hard to figure that college basketball refs might tilt things in the favor of the big name programs. From watching our games in the Big Ten it sure seems that way to me.
I think there is some truth in that to how our game was officiated down the stretch vs Houston.
Myles screen against Jarraeu was clearly illegal. Set up Baker’s 3 pointer. Injured Jarraeu worse. From that point on I think the fouls were at least 7-2 Rutgers-Houston. Before that I think Houston had more 2nd half fouls than Rutgers. Part of that was we were a step slow down the stretch but I am sure the refs knew they probably missed that call against Myles. And it would have been such a huge play had we won the game.
Btw I am not blaming the refs for the loss...you have to make a shot, play some defense, get a rebound. Just make one damn play. But I found it interesting how things seemed to change.
It was a moving screen - he shifted his hip out into Jarreau as he passed. The game wasn't being called in such a way that it would have been a foul in that particular game, but by the rules that should have been an illegal screen. When I saw it on replay I felt we got away with one.
Wrong!!!
Even the analyst, who was a Houston promoter all the way, had no complaint about Myles' screen.
It does amaze me that 2 fans can see such a play in totally different ways. I don't claim to notice these things when they actually occur, but we were treated to numerous replays due to the need of the analyst to fawn over the Houston player's toughness a little more. Myles did move into that position, but he set himself in plenty of time for it to be a legitimate screen.
Never a mention of Myles' playing with a injured ankle though!
Because the analysts are always right, lol. How many times this season have analysts said how great a play something was, when it was clearly a violation? More times than I can count.
That was called a moving screen dozens of times this year in the B1G games I've watched. Jarreau would have cleared Johnson if he hadn't moved his hip into Jarreau, and Jarreau ended up on the floor. If it had happened to Baker getting knocked on his *** chasing Jarreau, this board would have been screaming.
I thought he was set. If Girrault wasn’t injured he runs around the screen but likely not in time. The kid played in a lot of pain but he was out of control on that play and on 2 drives. They gave him fouls on both of the drives. They owed him nothing.
On the other hand the big man on Houston literally bent his leg out and tripped JY at half court in the first half. No call there and no 7-2 makeup calls in our favor either.
It amazes me how prevalent conspiracy theories are becoming. Whatever happened to critical reasoning which pretty much destroys all conspiracy theories, along with Occam's Razor?
Everybody knows that if A = B, then Z = X. What's that you say? That's not a logically extrapolatable conclusion? Aha! So, like all the other sheep, you admit that you refuse to see that Z equals X. I rest my case.
Everybody knows that if A = B, then Z = X. What's that you say? That's not a logically extrapolatable conclusion? Aha! So, like all the other sheep, you admit that you refuse to see that Z equals X. I rest my case.
This is pretty amazing for you to say given your responses to my posts.
Because there aren’t dozens, if not hundreds, of popular wacky conspiracy theories floating around these days? Or because “the refs are intentionally keeping us down” isn’t a conspiracy theory?
Is it just RU they’re out to get? Or is it all the non-blue bloods? You figure all refs are in on it? If not, then what percentage of refs is on the take, do you figure? Do they do it for the money? Or out of a mutual love of storied sports programs?
Details. We need details.
i almost never see anyone write (other than sarcastically) that all refs are "in on it" or "they are only out to get Rutgers".
What I see is people asking for a charge to be a charge and a block to be a block whether it's minute 1 or minute 39 or a call is the same whether the coach is crying like a baby like Fran McCaffery does for 37 minutes a game or if the coach never complains like Pike or whether the name on the front of the jersey has national championships or hasn't has a winning record in years........
and yet, it seem, over and over - that ain't the case -- that is what I see when I read what people get frustrated about.
I work parties and bar mitzvah, if you really find it amazing. give me a call - for you 10% discount.
One constant in every general ref thread is these moving goalposts. Above you insinuate that Bo Boroski fouled Myles Johnson out of the Ohio State game in order to “remind us who really runs the conference” now you take umbrage if someone implies that you think the refs are intentionally keeping us down.
It’s also worth noting: most of the popular theories about the refs taking direction from the league office would actually support them being biased in favor of Rutgers in that game. We were 6-0, ranked #11 and on the rise, people were talking about possible final four runs. Ohio State was ranked #23 and to my recollection was not thought to be a top tier team at the time.
wow.. there is a lot going on in ur head... I didn't mention Myles fouling out...
I merely made oblique references and non-district accusations. you personalize everything.
your examples are spot on and, I think, account for +90% of the frustrating calls that ru fans (and fans of other non blue blood teams) complain about.
better teams and better players get the benefit of the doubt for the reasons you stated.
doesn’t make it any less frustrating nor does it make it any less impactful to teams like RU.
lastly I don’t think it happens as often (or at least as consistently) as we complain about it.
with that said- the refs in the Ohio state game just flat out stole that game from Rutgers. That’s the only game where everything you said and everything I said goes out the window.
The officiating in THAT one game not only affected the game, it determined the outcome.
it was so beyond bad and unbalanced - it was downright suspicious.
Last edited:
most basketball games come down to 2-3 possessions. just 1-2 "bad call" is all it takes.
So you disagree with the concept of a makeup call if a bad/soft call was made earlier to help even things out for both teams?
It's sort of unclear what he did or why he said that as far as I know. It certainly had the potential to be something bad which I'm sure is why he was fired.
Saw too many games this year where the refs decided the outcome of the game, that really needs to be addressed, win or lose the kids on the floor need to determine who wins the game. The refs cannot be making calls especially at game end when there is no change of possession or the shot is not impacted, or the call is away from the ball