April 7, 201313 yr Give me a break. The calls could have gone either way at best. They were pretty much identical jump ball calls. Call was made quick when 4 hands were on the rock. Siva came away with it quickly the first time, and Baker the second. You disagree with that???
April 7, 201313 yr And common sense tells me you were watching this game with blue goggles on... :thumb: :lol2: There it is! Yep, only UK fans thought the calls were bad. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
April 7, 201313 yr They were pretty much identical jump ball calls. Call was made quick when 4 hands were on the rock. Siva came away with it quickly the first time, and Baker the second. You disagree with that??? Personally, I thought Hancock fouled him before he got the ball. If he didn't then yea jump ball.
April 7, 201313 yr :lol2: There it is! Yep, only UK fans thought the calls were bad. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: It's either an amazing coincidence....or.....
April 7, 201313 yr Give me a break. The calls could have gone either way at best. So, why do you think that everyone was talking about the Hancock tie-up but not Siva's?
April 7, 201313 yr It's either an amazing coincidence....or..... That was sarcasm.... I can show 1000 tweets from my timeline of non UK fans who thought the same if you would like.
April 7, 201313 yr So, why do you think that everyone was talking about the Hancock tie-up but not Siva's? It's pretty obvious, do you really want me to answer? :ohbrother:
April 7, 201313 yr It's pretty obvious, do you really want me to answer? :ohbrother: Yes, I'm curious to hear the explanation on why one whistle that benefited Louisville is mentioned and a whistle that took the arrow (and a live-ball turnover and scoring opportunity) away from the Cards gets ignored. Very similar calls, but it seems like there's a lot more attention on one than the other. GT shared his theory; what's yours?
April 7, 201313 yr Yes, I'm curious to hear the explanation on why one whistle that benefited Louisville is mentioned and a whistle that took the arrow (and a live-ball turnover and scoring opportunity) away from the Cards gets ignored. Very similar calls, but it seems like there's a lot more attention on one than the other. GT shared his theory; what's yours? Because I'm a UK fan duh. (fits the narrative of this board right?)
April 7, 201313 yr Because I'm a UK fan duh. (fits the narrative of this board right?) The narrative is that the game should be called different in the final minute. We have two calls that were identical in nature and called as such in question... :idunno:
April 7, 201313 yr The Hancock call gets more attention because it was at the end of the game when Wichita had the ball back with a shot to tie it. The questionable call took that away. Clearly, that is why this call is receiving a lot of discussion. Thought that one was pretty obvious.
April 7, 201313 yr The narrative is that the game should be called different in the final minute. We have two calls that were identical in nature and called as such in question... :idunno: I thought it was an overall bad call. Looked like a foul or no whistle to me.
April 7, 201313 yr My take on the calls debate: 1. If the Siva play was a jump ball, then there is no doubt the Hancock play was a jump ball. There was definitely longer simultaneous possession on the Hancock play. 2. Baker tackled Van Trease before Van Trease fouled Baker. Baker wrapped his arm around VT and grabbed him. I thought double foul was the correct call. 3. Officials almost always loosen up at the end of games. They try to let the players decide the game. Isn't that what we all complain about? Officials deciding games? The officials let this play out just right IMO.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.