Wrong Steenken was fouled on I believe 5 of those misses not to mention 2 no calls when he was shooting 3's..

 

Steenken tried to sell the foul (as I would) but they were not fouls.

Lung - CCH missed a lot of FTs in the 2nd half. HC hardly missed. The FT advantage definitely went to HC. I'm not sure if Steenken's even touched the rim. That's a nice stroke.

I was referring to the number of free throws vs the percentage. While you're correct CCH missed more free throws (10 vs 5), they also made more (19 vs 11). That's 8 more points from the line, thus my statement that it was the difference in the game!

Steenken tried to sell the foul (as I would) but they were not fouls.

 

as usual, cshs makes a good call

Wrong Steenken was fouled on I believe 5 of those misses not to mention 2 no calls when he was shooting 3's.

 

Porter, how did he do on the free throws?

2 answers to your question:

 

1. By definition, its an intentional foul if the defender is not making a play for the ball. The HC defender came up to foul but instead of slapping the arm or the ball , he wrapped both arms around the offensive player. So by defintion, it was intentional.

 

2. The play the defender made is not called an intentional foul 99.9% of the time.

 

Anyone know which refs called the JV game?

I don't believe you are allowed to list the refs in this forum.

I don't believe you are allowed to list the refs in this forum.

 

If that's the case, then thanks for the heads up.

Some notes:

 

JV -- that block / charge call probably was a bad call, but there is no excuse (as cshs already pointed out) for throwing a clipboard (JV assistant). Complete lack of composure. Giwa played real well in the 2nd half, pressured the ball real well and converted some steals into easy buckets. Sorrell is a nice player with a good stroke. Eifert is a man playing with boys down low -- tough to handle in the post at the JV level.

 

Varsity:

 

1. #23 of Holy Cross did a great job on T.J. (Laible? maybe). Absolutely worked his tail off all night.

 

2. The court was fine -- much ado about nothing.

 

3. Love Busse of HC. Holy Cross is twice as effective with him on the floor.

 

4. Ryan and Lantry have nice shots if they can get open looks.

 

5. I disagree on the "play of the game," I believe it was the aforementioned Landrum steal and "old fashioned" three point play with .6 of a second left in the 3rd. Holy Cross had absolutely dominated the 3rd, leading 43-36 with about 1:30 or so to play in the quarter. CCH went on a 7 - 0 run to end the quarter, capped off by Joe's play to tie it, and Holy Cross wasn't able to regain the momentum.

 

6. Steenken had an off night, giving CCH defense some credit is fine, but he had some open looks that didn't go down. That being said, for a big kid, he can really stroke it at the stripe. Great touch.

 

7. Absolute lack of post play is a real problem for HC, when they aren't making shots (1st half last night, all of Holmes game I understand) they are in trouble. Sounds like UK.

 

8. I agree with BigStud, and made the same point to cshs81 last night, CCH is going to have their hands full in the first round of districts on that floor. 14-1 against a team means nothing when you have your post-season life on the line on a scrappy opponent's home floor.

Some notes:

 

JV -- that block / charge call probably was a bad call, but there is no excuse (as cshs already pointed out) for throwing a clipboard (JV assistant). Complete lack of composure. Giwa played real well in the 2nd half, pressured the ball real well and converted some steals into easy buckets. Sorrell is a nice player with a good stroke. Eifert is a man playing with boys down low -- tough to handle in the post at the JV level.

 

Varsity:

 

1. #23 of Holy Cross did a great job on T.J. (Laible? maybe). Absolutely worked his tail off all night.

 

2. The court was fine -- much ado about nothing.

 

3. Love Busse of HC. Holy Cross is twice as effective with him on the floor.

 

4. Ryan and Lantry have nice shots if they can get open looks.

 

5. I disagree on the "play of the game," I believe it was the aforementioned Landrum steal and "old fashioned" three point play with .6 of a second left in the 3rd. Holy Cross had absolutely dominated the 3rd, leading 43-36 with about 1:30 or so to play in the quarter. CCH went on a 7 - 0 run to end the quarter, capped off by Joe's play to tie it, and Holy Cross wasn't able to regain the momentum.

 

6. Steenken had an off night, giving CCH defense some credit is fine, but he had some open looks that didn't go down. That being said, for a big kid, he can really stroke it at the stripe. Great touch.

 

7. Absolute lack of post play is a real problem for HC, when they aren't making shots (1st half last night, all of Holmes game I understand) they are in trouble. Sounds like UK.

 

8. I agree with BigStud, and made the same point to cshs81 last night, CCH is going to have their hands full in the first round of districts on that floor. 14-1 against a team means nothing when you have your post-season life on the line on a scrappy opponent's home floor.

 

 

I agree with all the above.

 

Yes it was Liable. Senior guard finally getting his due playing time.

 

These last 2 years have just been heartbreakers playing CCH. Beating CCH is almost becoming like it was for Boston to beat the Yankee's. Even if we have the team to do it and have every oppurtunity to do so we can't finish. I just hope this group gets another shot.

I agree with all the above.

 

Did that hurt?

 

I just hope this group gets another shot.

 

Barring Holy Cross losing to Michael and the Romettes ( ), you'll get another shot. The CovCath team that has hit the floor since the Elder game before Christmas isn't going to beat Holmes.

Did that hurt?

 

 

 

Barring Holy Cross losing to Michael and the Romettes ( ), you'll get another shot. The CovCath team that has hit the floor since the Elder game before Christmas isn't going to beat Holmes.

If Edomonson continues to shoot like he did against Campbell there aren't many teams in the state who can beat Holmes. Including a few of the teams that already beat them. They have been missing that outside shot all year.

For number 7 on your list HSSB, I will say by Districts Eifert will be filling some of that role.

The one downside to HC's effort to take TJ out of the offense is that is opened up the floor more for Tim T. to penetrate. I know of at least one clear-out play for Tim that resulted in an 'and 1'. With TJ isolated in the corner, they simply opened up the post and let Tim T penetrate. I'm surprised they didn't go to that more often.

 

I understand why HC did what they did but there was a downside.

I was there for both games. JV was a great game until a referee blew a charging call with a minute left. That is why the refs are doing a JV game, there not that good!

 

 

Is your comment about the officials being JV officials because they are not good enough to be varsity officials? I find it ironic that this was about a call in the JV game, in which the coaches are JV coaches because they are not good enough yet to be varsity coaches. Or maybe they just act childish enough that the HS AD won't give them a varsity gig.

 

Does anybody else see the irony in that.???

 

There is not a ref in the world that would say he gets every call right.

 

The coach didn't get the techicals because he disagreed with the call. Every coach disagrees with a call on occasion and the officials tolerate thier disagreement.

 

The coach got the technical because of the childish temper tantrum he threw. That type of behavior out of a 2nd grader at Holy Cross is not tolerated at school and would result in him being put in "timeout". :cry: :cry:

 

Amazing that we are disciplining a grown man for the same offense as a 7 year old.

 

As an official, I can tell you that throwing a clipboard is going to get you a "T" (and I don't mean... "Timeout") on every occasion, no matter how bad the call.

 

I guarantee that in the locker room, that coach felt pretty silly for cost them the opportunity and probably needs to apologize to his team.

The one downside to HC's effort to take TJ out of the offense is that is opened up the floor more for Tim T. to penetrate. I know of at least one clear-out play for Tim that resulted in an 'and 1'. With TJ isolated in the corner, they simply opened up the post and let Tim T penetrate. I'm surprised they didn't go to that more often.

 

I understand why HC did what they did but there was a downside.

 

When you have a player like TJ you have to take that risk. I would rather have everyone else beat me than the one player who has proven all season he will beat you if you let him. Tim T did what he had to do. Now HC job is to figure out a way to still limit TJ but also fluster Timmy T. Which I'm guessing will be a switch of defender.