Whatever. But you’re grassy knoll theory is wrong I believe. That said home teams do get more of the benefit and very good players get the benefit of the doubt. But that door opens fully in both directions.
The Referees
- Thread starter richthedentist
- Start date
Whatever. But you’re grassy knoll theory is wrong I believe. That said home teams do get more of the benefit and very good players get the benefit of the doubt. But that door opens fully in both directions.
I would need to analyze last year. I didn't see it go against both teams this year, and neither did objective observers. Whatever. You won, you have no need to convince me of the purity of your victory.
One thing to look for in making this analysis is shot attempts in the paint. Typically, the team that operates in the paint gets to the line more. RU had 41 attempts in the paint to Seton Hall’s 21. Last year‘s discrepancy was also in favor of RU. In the first half of this year‘s game, Seton Hall was treated pretty indulgently when RU got an offensive rebound or penetrated.
Watching the replay and the Baker non call at 216 left was the game sealing non call....McKnight grabbed him and Mamu body checked him.....then Powell gets fouled to make a 6 point game 8
If Baker gets 2 FTs to get the score to 64-60 @2:16, you have it still within 2 possessions and could have made it very interesting.
It's not why RU lost but definitely a game altering non-call when you're down 17 and get it to possibly 4.
If Baker gets 2 FTs to get the score to 64-60 @2:16, you have it still within 2 possessions and could have made it very interesting.
It's not why RU lost but definitely a game altering non-call when you're down 17 and get it to possibly 4.
I didn't think that was a foul when I watched the replay.
It was at other end of the floor during the game and view wasn't great.
Can't shoot 20 % from 3 and win games against good teams. It just won't happen.
Difference in the 2 teams was Powell to state the obvious. Shot it well and played a good floor game too.
Biggest play of the game IMO was when RU cut it to 3 and Nzei got in the lane and kicked it to Powell for the 3. That was a dagger.
It was at other end of the floor during the game and view wasn't great.
Can't shoot 20 % from 3 and win games against good teams. It just won't happen.
Difference in the 2 teams was Powell to state the obvious. Shot it well and played a good floor game too.
Biggest play of the game IMO was when RU cut it to 3 and Nzei got in the lane and kicked it to Powell for the 3. That was a dagger.
Pike talked about that play specifically in the post game, noting it was a possible game changer. But he put the blame squarely on Baker and gave no hint that he felt he was fouled.
Hinted at it being a learning experience for his young guard.
A
anon_xekqhstck0ygt
Guest
that was the one call I was mad about. key call, but thinking back, Baker was a little out of control. I was more mad about the big guy hitting wide open 3's.
Re watched the 2nd half this am, that was the one I thought bad. Rest were fine.
Mathis did nothing wrong trying to get off the back of the player. Who then f bombed with the ref right there. Watching that ref and review I could have sworn a T on the hall kid. But no, the stupid double t.
I think it was 6 there and we would have gotten 2 shots and keep Mathis in.
But did it make the difference ? Heck no. Poor shot selection, the usual inability to finish, and general sloppiness was.
Absolutely error on my part. Should have known the crowd looking to blame the refs would have filled all available seats sooner or later.
I'd like to see (across all sports) more data/stats kept around officials. Just as players have tendencies, so too do referees. We've talked about it in baseball threads on the football board - pitchers/catchers know the strike zone tendencies of certain umpires, and use that to their advantage. And that data is all available online.
For basketball - what are specific referee tendencies? If you could easily see which refs rarely called charges, that would help teams plan around that (no sense Omoruyi stepping in for charges that are unlikely to get called, and may more often get called against him). If you could easily see which refs called the most moving screen fouls, that could help inform the bigs in a given game (or change game strategy to move away from high screens with slower bigs). What refs are more likely to call fouls on three pointers, or on fouls close to the basket, etc, etc.
All of that data would be really valuable to coaches, and provide more context for fans. If you knew going in that a certain crew is unlikely to make certain calls (or more likely to), then "good" or "bad" calls fall into more context with that given official or crew. It would provide interesting color commentary ("Omoruyi draws more charges than anyone in the conference, and this crew has collectively called the most charges in college basketball - will be interesting to see how that will impact the game").
Instead of "I can't believe a travel wasn't called there!", it could be "this ref never calls travels in that situation". Or instead of "how is that a flagrant?", it could be "this ref is in the top 5% when it comes to calling flagrant fouls". I think context would help fans, improve expectations, and help inform coaches how to best strategize.
I'm sure that coaches already have a sense of ref tendencies, and players do too. Having data, though, is much more powerful than a handful of anecdotes.
For basketball - what are specific referee tendencies? If you could easily see which refs rarely called charges, that would help teams plan around that (no sense Omoruyi stepping in for charges that are unlikely to get called, and may more often get called against him). If you could easily see which refs called the most moving screen fouls, that could help inform the bigs in a given game (or change game strategy to move away from high screens with slower bigs). What refs are more likely to call fouls on three pointers, or on fouls close to the basket, etc, etc.
All of that data would be really valuable to coaches, and provide more context for fans. If you knew going in that a certain crew is unlikely to make certain calls (or more likely to), then "good" or "bad" calls fall into more context with that given official or crew. It would provide interesting color commentary ("Omoruyi draws more charges than anyone in the conference, and this crew has collectively called the most charges in college basketball - will be interesting to see how that will impact the game").
Instead of "I can't believe a travel wasn't called there!", it could be "this ref never calls travels in that situation". Or instead of "how is that a flagrant?", it could be "this ref is in the top 5% when it comes to calling flagrant fouls". I think context would help fans, improve expectations, and help inform coaches how to best strategize.
I'm sure that coaches already have a sense of ref tendencies, and players do too. Having data, though, is much more powerful than a handful of anecdotes.
I thought the refs were okay. In the first half it took a while to get a whistle as I thought we were hacked on some put backs but then it evened out. Fordham game had some terrible calls. We need to play better to win on the road. Our shooting percentages were not good.