Can someone explain two calls for me?

[mdlUK.1]

Number one, the T on Aaron. Didn't see anything on the replay that warranted anything more than a warning on BOTH players. So, why the T on Aaron?

Two. The play where the refs called a shot clock violation on cincy but replay showed it hit the rim. I have no problem with that but why did they award the ball to UK via the arrow? UK already had the ball on the rebound.

 

[TruBluCatFan]

I thought the T wasn't a great call but they had just warned them after the Lyles/Ellis incident. Guess they wanted to let players know who was in charge. And Andrew should have avoided it. Ellis gave too but andrew initiated for the most part.

On the shot clock, I wondered same thing.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[buckkiller]

Well I think the 2nd play you talk of even though ball hit rim It was obvious we controlled the rebound that is why we got the ball. I could not think of another reason unless they went by the possession arrow. That is my theory and I am sticking to it.

 

[Barleycorn]

I think it was the possession arrow.

 

[mdlUK.1]

They did go by the possession arrow. That was my question. Why did they use the arrow when we already had the ball?

 

[Aike]

My two cents...



Aaron walked past and intentionally bumped Ellis.

On one replay angle, you can see that Ellis also threw his shoulder into Aaron, but I'm sure that the ref thought that the act of Aaron walking past Ellis and bumping him unnecessarily was an escalation of previous action.

Right or wrong, the ref wanted to reign things in and thought that was how to do it.

On the second play, the ref must have made the determination that UK didn't have clear possession.

Or maybe the argument is that because it was incorrectly called a shot clock violation, it prevented the teams from properly going after what was a live ball.

So the fair thing to do was to make it a jump ball (since you can't go back and give Cincy a chance to come up with the ball).

For the record, I didn't agree with either call. But that's what I think the logic was.

 

[JBHolmesfan]

Originally posted by TruBluCatFan:
I thought the T wasn't a great call but they had just warned them after the Lyles/Ellis incident. Guess they wanted to let players know who was in charge. And Andrew should have avoided it. Ellis gave too but andrew initiated for the most part.

On the shot clock, I wondered same thing.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I agree with the tech, at least your reason why it was called. I think it was called to keep the game from getting too out of control. The ball was given to us after the shot clock review because we had the possession arrow. Had UC had the possession arrow it would have been awarded to them.

 

[PhattyJ4UK_rivals309166]

One more..

When our guy was going up for a fast break layup and I think Ellis drove a shoulder into him.. not only was it not called intentional but it was called a non shooting foul.

 

[buckkiller]

Yeah that is what ticked me off on the review cause we clearly had the rebound. The review was pointless IMO. So if the possession arrow would of been in Thugcats favour even though we pulled the board they would of got the ball. Refs are ruining the game period!

 

[Aike]

Originally posted by PhattyJ4UK:
One more..

When our guy was going up for a fast break layup and I think Ellis drove a shoulder into him.. not only was it not called intentional but it was called a non shooting foul.

I'm not sure if it's the play you're talking about, but Ellis body checked Lyles on the play preceding the Aaron tech. It was so obviously not a play on the ball that I was surprised they didn't go to the monitor, but whatever.

 

[jrm693]

Originally posted by Aike:
My two cents...



Aaron walked past and intentionally bumped Ellis.

On one replay angle, you can see that Ellis also threw his shoulder into Aaron, but I'm sure that the ref thought that the act of Aaron walking past Ellis and bumping him unnecessarily was an escalation of previous action.

Right or wrong, the ref wanted to reign things in and thought that was how to do it.

On the second play, the ref must have made the determination that UK didn't have clear possession.

Or maybe the argument is that because it was incorrectly called a shot clock violation, it prevented the teams from properly going after what was a live ball.

So the fair thing to do was to make it a jump ball (since you can't go back and give Cincy a chance to come up with the ball).

For the record, I didn't agree with either call. But that's what I think the logic was.

This is it

 

[ukcatsfan1]

Originally posted by mdlUK.1:
They did go by the possession arrow. That was my question. Why did they use the arrow when we already had the ball?

Because they blew the whistle which made it a dead ball

since they already blew the call, they had to go to the possession arrow since it wasn't clear if the Cincinnati player stopped on the whistle and just let the ball go.

.

 

[Ugoff]

On the shot clock situation, the ref blew the whistle and erroneously called it a violation, so I think they had to discount our rebound/possession. It wound up costing us the arrow.

I'm surprised more wasn't made of UC's coach apparently trying to drag Cobb off the bench and insert him into the game as the freethrow shooter. I remember during the Pitino days someone tried to swap shooters but at least they were both in the game. Getting a guy of the bench takes it to a new level of crazy. Just for fun I looked up Cobb's FT % and it was 79%, highest on the team.

 

[LowCountryCat]

Originally posted by TruBluCatFan:
I thought the T wasn't a great call but they had just warned them after the Lyles/Ellis incident. Guess they wanted to let players know who was in charge. And Andrew should have avoided it. Ellis gave too but andrew initiated for the most part.

On the shot clock, I wondered same thing.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Aaron not Andrew.

 

[Smyrna_Cat_rivals377937]

Ellis should have been called for a technical before that. And if they were going to call a T on Andrew, they should have also given one to Ellis for being involved (in many ways, he started the whole thing).

 

[Blue Decade]

Originally posted by mdlUK.1:
Number one, the T on Aaron. Didn't see anything on the replay that warranted anything more than a warning on BOTH players. So, why the T on Aaron?

Two. The play where the refs called a shot clock violation on cincy but replay showed it hit the rim. I have no problem with that but why did they award the ball to UK via the arrow? UK already had the ball on the rebound.

The flagrant call against Ellis in the previous game was not an accident or an isolated event. Although the players had been warned by the refs, that was Ellis' fault. He is not just rough. I give Ellis credit for playing hard, but he also tries to get into other players' heads by shoving and flopping. The replay clearly shows this. Aaron barely did anything. Compared to Ellis' rough play, I did not think Aaron's borderline brush merited a T. It was an overreaction by the ref. At that point in the game, Cincy was still more or less within striking distance. This is an official overthinking. I don't like arbitrary calls that can change the outcome. On the clock violation, they blew the call. The officials incorrectly thought the shot missed the rim. The replay showed otherwise. But after the shot came off the rim, it was rebounded by a UK player before they blew the whistle. When the whistle was blown, the ball was in UK's possession. That's why they had to give it to us. There was no basis for giving the ball to Cincy.

 

[uky8unc5]

Originally posted by Ugoff:
On the shot clock situation, the ref blew the whistle and erroneously called it a violation, so I think they had to discount our rebound/possession. It wound up costing us the arrow.

Ugoff is correct. Shot clock violation is reviewable, which revealed the ball hit the rim. Since neither team had possession when the whistle was blown, alternate possession is invoked.

 

[Trublupopeye]

The famous walk by is a staple in basketball. You want to send a message to a player who is trying to intimidate another player you walk by him during a dead ball picking a straight line and kinda pushing the said player out of the way. Alot of the times as your doing this your talking to him with your mouth closed telling him that the player he's trying to intimidate is off limit's. I believe Aaron was letting Ellis know that he needed to let Trey Lyles alone. I didn't have a problem with it because it was a leadership move by Aaron.

 

[C1180]

The truth of the matter is if Ellis was trying to influence the game with his thug play. He hat epid failure. All he succeeded in doing was arousing a sluggish UK team. There is an old saying "Let Sleeping Dog Lie" and IMO UC and Ellis awakened the sleeping dog.