Matt's post game show comments.

[kyjeff1]

If we lost on rebounds, then why were we in the lead until the t was called? Period

Rewatch the last play of the game. Gor the 18th time in the game we gave up an offensive rebound that lead to the winning basket. Had we secured tgat rebound we at least go to a second ot.
Had we only given up 8 offensive rebounds in the game we win easily.
So many of their offensive rebounds ended up giving them points that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Including some wide open threes.

 

[preacherfan]

Rewatch the last play of the game. Gor the 18th time in the game we gave up an offensive rebound that lead to the winning basket. Had we secured tgat rebound we at least go to a second ot.
Had we only given up 8 offensive rebounds in the game we win easily.
So many of their offensive rebounds ended up giving them points that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Including some wide open threes.

We turned the rebounding battle around in the 2nd half. Isaac was a big part of that. Having Isaac shooting the FT's and rebounding is a far better alternative than having Skal doing that.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Exactly.....the people that are bringing up being tied even with the disparity in rebounds.

We were tied after the T as well.

And what ended up being the final play was a missed AM shot leading to an offensive putback

 

[kybassfan]

Okay, but the referee can use his "discretion" to give a T to anyone for almost any show of emotion. Coaches would be ejected during almost every game if refs just threw out T's because they could. They would be T'd up for questioning any and all calls, getting out of the coaching box, etc Players would be disqualified for flashing the 3 sign, doing the chicken dance, screaming when they dunk, flexing, gyrating, etc.

All I want is some common sense and spirit of the law running the show and not an idiot like Pat Adams. We don't need Inspector Javert officiating bball games.

Again, I agree. Its not a call I would have made, but the action brought the call into play.

 

[BoulderCat_rivals187983]

Wow, 5 pages on this. I to think it was getting outrebounded which lost us the game. Not surprising, it hasn't been one of our strengths this year. As for that call, yes I've seen a lot of guys do that with no call, but it's just one of those things where you have to hold in your frustration, and wait until you can unleash it in a positive way. Of course as a guy in my 50's that's a lot easier to say than for an 18 year old man to do. Like you said, he checks in the game, and boom a foul call. That is frustrating.

 

[kybassfan]

Bass, from what I have learned on here it is not a rule.

Yeah, its not a mandatory technical. It is a discretionary call. As I have stated many times, not one I'd have made, but the action brought the call into play.

 

[kyjeff1]

We turned the rebounding battle around in the 2nd half. Isaac was a big part of that. Having Isaac shooting the FT's and rebounding is a far better alternative than having Skal doing that.

We certainly didn't turn it around on that last play.

 

[preacherfan]

We certainly didn't turn it around on that last play.

Yeah, because Humphries was out of the game. That is the point.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

FWIW I don't think it matter Humphries was outta the game......the guy that grabbed the board was Murray's man IIRC

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Then again maybe not. The dude blew by Murray and Skal stepped up to try to defend the shot.

I still think Hump or no Hump, they get that board tho

 

[kyjeff1]

Yeah, because Humphries was out of the game. That is the point.

You do realize what we are talking about is skal missing his 2nd free throw and that being what cost uk the game right? You do realize the only reason Skal was in the game was because Hump fouled out right? All of these things happened AFTER Humphries fouled out so I don't get why you would even bring that up to support your side of the debate.
The bottom line is had Skal made that second free throw it still wouldn't have made a difference. Humphries WAS DISQUALIFIED, he was no longer available to play. A&M drove to the bucket, Skal didn't man his position and box out, A&M got the board, just like they did 18 other times throughout the game and stuck it back in.
Bottom line is Skal's second free throw wouldn't have mattered. Has nothing to do with Hump.

 

[kyjeff1]

Then again maybe not. The dude blew by Murray and Skal stepped up to try to defend the shot.

I still think Hump or no Hump, they get that board tho

I don't get why Hump is even involved in this conversation. He was out of the game, he doesn't get 6 fouls, he had 5 fouls on him. That is why Skal was in the game. Humphries couldn't have helped us. Skal missed the 2nd free throw but we lost by 2 points. Had he made the free throw we only lose by 1. Yippppeeeeee!

 

[Midway Cat]

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like some of you are ignoring the fact that we potentially would have had a two or three point lead had the T not been called.

Without the free throws on the T, A&M would've been down 1 with Humphries stepping to the line for 2.

Did we get outrebounded? Sure. But let's not act like that call didn't make any difference because of the A&M put back at the buzzer. Without it, the put back might not have mattered.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

I don't get why Hump is even involved in this conversation. He was out of the game, he doesn't get 6 fouls, he had 5 fouls on him. That is why Skal was in the game. Humphries couldn't have helped us. Skal missed the 2nd free throw but we lost by 2 points. Had he made the free throw we only lose by 1. Yippppeeeeee!

I guess their point is had Humphries not got the BS T, he would have still been in the game.

I guess lol. I don't really know at this point what they are arguing.

 

[yoshukai]

Bad news for you. We just said exactly the same thing.

He's not listening . Nobody pays attention to you.

 

[preacherfan]

I guess their point is had Humphries not got the BS T, he would have still been in the game.

I guess lol. I don't really know at this point what they are arguing.

[laughing] what typically happens in a thread that just keeps going is that there are multiple discussions going on and sometimes we lose track of which one is which.

 

[yoshukai]

I stand corrected, though only makes it worse to put put the game on him. Without his rebounding, we were dead already.

LOL , yes you do stand corrected. As usually.

 

[preacherfan]

You do realize what we are talking about is skal missing his 2nd free throw and that being what cost uk the game right? You do realize the only reason Skal was in the game was because Hump fouled out right? All of these things happened AFTER Humphries fouled out so I don't get why you would even bring that up to support your side of the debate.
The bottom line is had Skal made that second free throw it still wouldn't have made a difference. Humphries WAS DISQUALIFIED, he was no longer available to play. A&M drove to the bucket, Skal didn't man his position and box out, A&M got the board, just like they did 18 other times throughout the game and stuck it back in.
Bottom line is Skal's second free throw wouldn't have mattered. Has nothing to do with Hump.

Actually, I went back and read the reply that you replied to and you were talking about how rebounding cost us the game and you used the last rebound as a key example. My contention was that the BS call on Isaac cost us the game. Even the last rebound was a direct result of not having Isaac in the game.

As I said to another poster, I think the multiple discussions are creating some confusion. But, hey, it is still a fun and interesting discussion as evidenced by the multiple pages. This is one of the more animated discussions we have had in a while.

 

[yoshukai]

Yeah, its not a mandatory technical. It is a discretionary call. As I have stated many times, not one I'd have made, but the action brought the call into play.

Hard headed old fart aren't you .

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

[laughing] what typically happens in a thread that just keeps going is that there are multiple discussions going on and sometimes we lose track of which one is which.

Haha yeah. I think it's that and the fact I was on this thread at like 1am last night. I've lost track now of everything lol

 

[kybassfan]

Hard headed old fart aren't you .

Hey Stalker Perv! Well, I don't know. I heard only an ignorant jack *** would be able to tell. I'm still curious about that threat you made to beat me up over coffee. Too big a coward to own up that that one? Just making sure I have your threats right. You've threatened to stalk me and even put me on follow. My FIRST! I'm so proud.

I'm trying to decide what I should make you do next. You are so easy. This reminds me of Mohammed Ali's rope a dope.

 

[kyjeff1]

I guess their point is had Humphries not got the BS T, he would have still been in the game.

I guess lol. I don't really know at this point what they are arguing.

That's the only logical explanation but we are supposed to be talking about what happened AFTER the T. If the T didn't happen it wouldn't have been Skal shooting free throws.

 

[kyjeff1]

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like some of you are ignoring the fact that we potentially would have had a two or three point lead had the T not been called.

Without the free throws on the T, A&M would've been down 1 with Humphries stepping to the line for 2.

Did we get outrebounded? Sure. But let's not act like that call didn't make any difference because of the A&M put back at the buzzer. Without it, the put back might not have mattered.

I think a couple of posters are arguing that point but the rest of us are talking about what happened after the T. Someone said "if Skal made both his free throws we would have won".
Well, if the T didn't occur it wouldn't have been Skal that was shooting the free throws. It would have been Humphries.
But the T did happen and whether Skal made both free throws or not we would have lost.

 

[kyjeff1]

Actually, I went back and read the reply that you replied to and you were talking about how rebounding cost us the game and you used the last rebound as a key example. My contention was that the BS call on Isaac cost us the game. Even the last rebound was a direct result of not having Isaac in the game.

As I said to another poster, I think the multiple discussions are creating some confusion. But, hey, it is still a fun and interesting discussion as evidenced by the multiple pages. This is one of the more animated discussions we have had in a while.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm just debating, I'm not waving my arms in anger or anything like that.
I'm actually debating a couple if different things.
I am saying that our lack of keeping aTm off the offensive boards is what ultimately beat us. The last play of the game was the final nail in the coffin.
But I'm also saying the missed free throw by Skal didn't matter because we lose either way.
Now I like what @Aike said, he said that had Skal hit that second free throw we would be up one and aTm may have run a different play. This is true but they also may have run the same play. Either way the odds of them getting the rebound and a putback were pretty good.
I'm not going to argue/debate the technical because Pat Adams is an idiot and he did what he did. Our guys couldn't do anything about it so it was out of the players control.
So the only things really to debate are the rebounding and missed free throw. I just don't see how 1 more point makes a difference. We lost by 2.

 

[yoshukai]

Hey Stalker Perv! Well, I don't know. I heard only an ignorant jack *** would be able to tell. I'm still curious about that threat you made to beat me up over coffee. Too big a coward to own up that that one? Just making sure I have your threats right. You've threatened to stalk me and even put me on follow. My FIRST! I'm so proud.

I'm trying to decide what I should make you do next. You are so easy. This reminds me of Mohammed Ali's rope a dope.

Coffee and donuts!

 

[yoshukai]

Hey Stalker Perv! Well, I don't know. I heard only an ignorant jack *** would be able to tell. I'm still curious about that threat you made to beat me up over coffee. Too big a coward to own up that that one? Just making sure I have your threats right. You've threatened to stalk me and even put me on follow. My FIRST! I'm so proud.

I'm trying to decide what I should make you do next. You are so easy. This reminds me of Mohammed Ali's rope a dope.

Don't know how you can take my invitation as a threat ? I just said talk basketball over coffee because I know you're old and feeble. Honestly, I'd rather get together and discuss big blue over a beer or two. You've become a great source of entertainment for me . The least I can do is buy you a beer .lol

 

[kyblue22]

If the T was called with 6 minutes to go in the game, that's when you say "the T didn't beat us, we lost because of rebounding, or x or y or z."

But when that call happens with 9 seconds left in OT, and we win if it's not called - yeah, the T is what beat us.

It's fairly simple, you guys are making this harder than it is.

Agreed

 

[yoshukai]

Whoa, thar Tex! We agree, I was just listing a few things that happened after the tip. Many things led to the loss, much more than some whistle blowin' hombre in a zebra shirt.

By the way, whatever you got poured over them rocks, iffin it's over 12 years old, single malt and better in' 100 bucks a bottle, mind pourin me a swig?

How bout having a drink with me ?