March 24, 200917 yr I've seen several people comment on the "zone" that was played, but was it really different than the "sagging man to man" we've seen before? UK switches in their man to man fairly freely, and there have been several games where BCG has the bigs stay down low even if their guy is wide open on the perimeter. I'm certainly not an expert, but I didn't see anything that differed greatly from what we've seen previously. :thumb: The saying goes that a good man to man looks like a zone and a good zone looks like a man to man. I didnt notice a zone, but I admit that I wasnt watching with that in mind.
March 24, 200917 yr :thumb: The saying goes that a good man to man looks like a zone and a good zone looks like a man to man. I didnt notice a zone, but I admit that I wasnt watching with that in mind. It looked like a triangle and 2 to me. It was definately a zone.
March 25, 200917 yr It looked like a triangle and 2 to me. It was definately a zone. It may have been I wasnt really watching that close for it. I was just stating that it can be deceptive if you aren't watching hard away from the ball.
March 25, 200917 yr It looked like a triangle and 2 to me. It was definately a zone. It was a triangle and 2, I don't know why no one will admit it. The first 2 possessions of the 2nd half, that was all.
March 25, 200917 yr Their arena is as nice as a lot of Major schools, it holds over 17,000. I was impressed with their gym and the layout. Great win Cats! My point isn't really about the capacity but the intensity of the crowd. They were really hyped up for UK. Fun to watch.
March 25, 200917 yr It was a triangle and 2, I don't know why no one will admit it. The first 2 possessions of the 2nd half, that was all. I'll admit it. I was teasing another poster in the update thread, but it was definately a triangle and 2 zone. :thumb: (some people will do anything to save their job:lol:)
March 25, 200917 yr It looked like a triangle and 2 to me. It was definately a zone. It was a triangle and 2, I don't know why no one will admit it. The first 2 possessions of the 2nd half, that was all. I was watching it and noticed the same thing you did. It looked really weird and I thought it was a zone at first. Then I used my DVR to go back and look more closely at it during the tv timeout, and it definitely was not a zone. There were things guys playing man to man and follwing their guys around the floor. The other team were also on the man but completely laid off of them so they were in the paint. If you remember Creighton has the one guard who guarded Meeks a lot that announcers even said couldn't shoot a lick and hardly ever shoots, so they were laying off of him. Then one of Creightons big guys they were laying way off since he was no threat from the outside. It was not a zone at all, just same man to man as always. Just two guys were playing way off their man that is why it looked weird and like a zone, but it definitely was not.
March 25, 200917 yr I'll admit it. I was teasing another poster in the update thread, but it was definately a triangle and 2 zone. :thumb: (some people will do anything to save their job:lol:) Did you go back and watch it? I know I did, because I wanted to really see if it was. After looking at it again, I really don't think it was a zone still.
March 25, 200917 yr Did you go back and watch it? I know I did, because I wanted to really see if it was. After looking at it again, I really don't think it was a zone still. They must really be a bad team then, because Gillispie said it was a triangle and two.
March 25, 200917 yr They must really be a bad team then, because Gillispie said it was a triangle and two. Haha, exactly. Obvious triangle and 2. Now I feel I have superior basketball knowledge to everyone on here. :banana::lol:
March 25, 200917 yr I forgot to pose this question last night. On the two point shot by Creighton that was then reviewed to give the player a three. I know you could see space between the line and the Creighton players shoe at one point, but IMO how could they call it a three if there was no visual evidence to prove without a doubt he was behind the line?
March 25, 200917 yr I forgot to pose this question last night. On the two point shot by Creighton that was then reviewed to give the player a three. I know you could see space between the line and the Creighton players shoe at one point, but IMO how could they call it a three if there was no visual evidence to prove without a doubt he was behind the line? Thats a great question. I looked at that several times and I believe at the very last instant the foot was on the line.
March 25, 200917 yr I forgot to pose this question last night. On the two point shot by Creighton that was then reviewed to give the player a three. I know you could see space between the line and the Creighton players shoe at one point, but IMO how could they call it a three if there was no visual evidence to prove without a doubt he was behind the line? I asked something similar in the game thread. The announcers always seem to indicate that it's like the NFL, where the call cannot be changed from what it was on the floor unless the evidence is conclusive. I've seen several times where it as clear they made a judgment call after using replay. This one IMO was a little more clear than some, but it still wasn't overwhelming.
March 25, 200917 yr The official with the same angle as the camera, that was blocked out by Meeks getting chucked by a Creighton defender as he was trying to get to the shooter, called it a two but the official on the other side called it a 3. I guess they just decided that he had the better angle since the replay showed that he was behind the line before Meeks obscured the view.
March 25, 200917 yr Haha, exactly. Obvious triangle and 2. Now I feel I have superior basketball knowledge to everyone on here. :banana::lol: Don't forget about me RRules. I called it 1st.:thumb: LOL.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.