No foul on the final shot?

Donate To GopherHole
goldenboy

goldenboy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
773
Points
113
Not a block from the replay, but right on the palm.
Even when rushed, Austin doesn't come up 6 feet short with no contact.
 

The chances of him making all three shots in that situation are slim to none anyways. It's a mute point.
 


It looked like Buford didn't get any of the ball to me, but you can't expect to get that call in that situation.
 

I thought he got the ball. Either way, if it doesn't go in the game is over, even if Hollins make the free throws.
 


Initially on the replay it looked to me like the defender got all wrist. But when I slowed it down to frame by frame on my DVR it appeared he got the ball with his fingertips, then onto the hand/wrist.

I'm pretty sure the wrist is not "part of the ball" for foul purposes, so it should have been called a foul.

Of course, there is a zero percent chance he makes that shot if not fouled, and even if it was called who knows if he can really make the free throws to tie it up. I'm definitely not blaming the loss on the offiicials. It would have been a huge bailout if called.
 


I thought something similar happened against Michigan State in the Barn last year, where the shooter, might have been Westbrook, looked like he got fouled on what would have been the game-winning shot, seeing as we lost that game by a single point.

My little brother, an Ohio State fan, told me that they generally won't call a foul in a crucial situation like that, perhaps to avoid a case of the officials deciding the outcome of a game. My brother, however, is also 13 and doesn't really like the Gophers, so I don't know how much truth there is to his statement, anyone else know?
 

Cayman said:
I thought something similar happened against Michigan State in the Barn last year, where the shooter, might have been Westbrook, looked like he got fouled on what would have been the game-winning shot, seeing as we lost that game by a single point.

My little brother, an Ohio State fan, told me that they generally won't call a foul in a crucial situation like that, perhaps to avoid a case of the officials deciding the outcome of a game. My brother, however, is also 13 and doesn't really like the Gophers, so I don't know how much truth there is to his statement, anyone else know?
Click to expand...

No, they don't normally call an "iffy" foul at the end of a game. However, I would bet my house that Wisconsin or Ohio State would get that call if the situation was reversed. Bo Ryan and Thad Matta have the officials beckoning to their every wish.
 



Tubby Quote (AP Game Story)

Smith felt Hollins was fouled by William Buford, who got a piece of the shot.

“It was a foul. It was a foul. Any other questions?” Smith said after the game. Asked again about the sequence, he said, “I didn’t make the call, so. … That’s just my opinion.”
 

It was a foul, but Hollins didn't sell it. Might have been called at the Barn. Ref would have been lynched had he blown that whistle at OSU.
 

It was a foul. Five percent chance he makes all three frees.
 

For the people saying "no way he makes all 3 free throws," I'm pretty sure this was one of the team's best free throw shooting performances of the season, if not the best. I believe the team went 24 for 27, just a hair under 90%. I'll admit I don't know how Hollins did personally, but of any game this year if one of our guys was gonna hit all 3, it would have been this one. The game would have gone into overtime, and our dear Gophers would have pulled out a win after being down the entire game, would have been just like 2009 @ Wisconsin, what a great game it would have been.

But whatever, we'll beat them at the Barn this year once again!
 



jamiche said:
It was a foul. Five percent chance he makes all three frees.
Click to expand...

Using the Gopher odds- yes- 5%. Using statistics he's about a 70% shooter so his odds of making all three were about 35%. Now multiply that times our chances of winning the overtime (about 15%) - now you get to the 5%. :)
 


The chances of him making all three shots in that situation are slim to none anyways. It's a mute point.
Click to expand...


It was not a moot point. If he makes the free throws it's tied. And the chances that Hollins would have made all three free throws were at least 50/50.

As to it being a mute point, I agree, the refs made it a mute a point by remaining mute.
 

cncmin said:
No, they don't normally call an "iffy" foul at the end of a game. However, I would bet my house that Wisconsin or Ohio State would get that call if the situation was reversed. Bo Ryan and Thad Matta have the officials beckoning to their every wish.
Click to expand...

I took your bet prior to the Wisconsin at Purdue game last year. Where do you live, I'll move in next week.
 

To me the "refs shouldn't decide a game" argument is just about the dumbest and most ignorant stance anyone can take in terms of the rhelm of sports. Every time some dumb ex-player or coach on ESPN utters this phrase I cringe.

1) The refs are there to make calls that decide the outcome of the game. It's their job. If you really don't want refs to decide a game - then don't have them at all.
2) A ref deciding not to call a foul on a shot that could win a game has the exact same impact as if they were to call the foul on the same shot.

The mere suggestion or thought that referees are not deciding games when they swallow their whistles late in games is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.
 

justthefacts said:
I took your bet prior to the Wisconsin at Purdue game last year. Where do you live, I'll move in next week.
Click to expand...

Apparently your precious Badgers were playing someone else deemed "important" by the referees (not the Gophers). Away. Sorry you lost your house. No you can't move in.
 

sec105 said:
It was not a moot point. If he makes the free throws it's tied. And the chances that Hollins would have made all three free throws were at least 50/50.

As to it being a mute point, I agree, the refs made it a mute a point by remaining mute.
Click to expand...

Not really. Even if he's 70% at the line (he's not, IIRC) 70% x 70% x 70% is about 34%. Now factor in the huge pressure on a freshman in that spot. Finally, even if he made all 3, the odds of us winning in OT weren't great (usually the team that made the furious comeback runs out of gas, 2009 Wiscy excepted.)

Our best hope was to have made one of the two lay-ups at the 15 sec. mark, foul, hope they only make 1 FT and take a 3 for a shot at the win. No OT.
 

howeda7 said:
Not really. Even if he's 70% at the line (he's not, IIRC) 70% x 70% x 70% is about 34%. Now factor in the huge pressure on a freshman in that spot. Finally, even if he made all 3, the odds of us winning in OT weren't great (usually the team that made the furious comeback runs out of gas, 2009 Wiscy excepted.)

Our best hope was to have made one of the two lay-ups at the 15 sec. mark, foul, hope they only make 1 FT and take a 3 for a shot at the win. No OT.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I agree that our odds of winning in OT would have been fairly low, and I know our best shot would have been to be down 1 with 15 seconds to go then foul. But if they only made 1/2 FTs, I REALLY don't see us taking a 3 for the win. Can you imagine the backlash against the coaching after we missed that shot? Down 2 in the closing seconds you get to the bucket and play OT. Also, Lighty was fouled out by that point....Advantage=us in OT
 

fryguy22 said:
Hmmm. I agree that our odds of winning in OT would have been fairly low, and I know our best shot would have been to be down 1 with 15 seconds to go then foul. But if they only made 1/2 FTs, I REALLY don't see us taking a 3 for the win. Can you imagine the backlash against the coaching after we missed that shot? Down 2 in the closing seconds you get to the bucket and play OT. Also, Lighty was fouled out by that point....Advantage=us in OT
Click to expand...

Lighty or not, you're -15.5 point dogs, you're on the road, and you just had to overcome an 18 point deficit in 10 minutes. The odds are not in your favor in OT. I'd rather let Hoff throw one up that has a 1/3 chance of going in then taking a 2 that only has a 50% shot of going in and then having to win in OT against tall odds.
 

josh087 said:
The mere suggestion or thought that referees are not deciding games when they swallow their whistles late in games is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, and to a large extent, agree.

But isn't a little like an OT game in hockey? You don't want the refs calling some ticky tack penalty or just plain getting a call wrong. I think that's what *some* of the folks using that terminology mean - make damn sure it's a foul or don't call it. I slowed that one down and it was still very difficult to determine if he was fouled, though I'm convinced he was.

As for the "ah well Hollins would've missed one of the free throws anyway" sentiment, that is not how a competitor would think. First off, he might make them all - I don't give a rip what your math tells you about odds. Secondly, anything can happen. Hell, he could make the first 2, miss the 3rd and we put it back at the buzzer for the win.

I'd say if a foul had been called, nobody would've turned the TV off, that's for sure.
 

josh087 said:
To me the "refs shouldn't decide a game" argument is just about the dumbest and most ignorant stance anyone can take in terms of the rhelm of sports. Every time some dumb ex-player or coach on ESPN utters this phrase I cringe.

1) The refs are there to make calls that decide the outcome of the game. It's their job. If you really don't want refs to decide a game - then don't have them at all.
2) A ref deciding not to call a foul on a shot that could win a game has the exact same impact as if they were to call the foul on the same shot.

The mere suggestion or thought that referees are not deciding games when they swallow their whistles late in games is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more with this.
 

josh087 said:
To me the "refs shouldn't decide a game" argument is just about the dumbest and most ignorant stance anyone can take in terms of the rhelm of sports. Every time some dumb ex-player or coach on ESPN utters this phrase I cringe.

1) The refs are there to make calls that decide the outcome of the game. It's their job. If you really don't want refs to decide a game - then don't have them at all.
2) A ref deciding not to call a foul on a shot that could win a game has the exact same impact as if they were to call the foul on the same shot.

The mere suggestion or thought that referees are not deciding games when they swallow their whistles late in games is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I umpire baseball and one of the things I like about the game of baseball is that it requires a call on EVERY play. It's either a ball or a strike. The runner is either safe or out. Baseball has its fair share of controversies and blown calls but there's no ducking responsibility for enforcing the rules, an issue that seems to have infiltrated other sports.
 

Thank you. Obviously fans use refs as an excuse when really they didn't determine the outcome to an extent, but to claim they don't affect the outcome of games is incredibly ignorant. Like a lot of professions, refs sometimes make large mistakes that have significant consequences for others.

josh087 said:
To me the "refs shouldn't decide a game" argument is just about the dumbest and most ignorant stance anyone can take in terms of the rhelm of sports. Every time some dumb ex-player or coach on ESPN utters this phrase I cringe.

1) The refs are there to make calls that decide the outcome of the game. It's their job. If you really don't want refs to decide a game - then don't have them at all.
2) A ref deciding not to call a foul on a shot that could win a game has the exact same impact as if they were to call the foul on the same shot.

The mere suggestion or thought that referees are not deciding games when they swallow their whistles late in games is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAFz3X1JrYQ

This is the recap of Michigan State @ Minnesota 2010, the game I mentioned earlier in this thread, if you go to 20 seconds in, it shows a replay of the final seconds of the game, and it looks like Chris Allen brings Lawrence Westbrook to the floor as he's shooting and nothing is called.

And to josh087, I wasn't trying to condone being light on the wistles at the end of the game, as I agree, not calling a foul can have the same game changing effect as calling one that is questionable.

Also, is it possible to embed videos on GopherHole?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom