"old"shooter

Let me be clear in stating that I am not remotely saying anything negative about the Ashland players. I know some of them and I know most of their parents. They are moving on which is what it is all about. If the game had been reversed, I would also be pleased that my team was moving on. Still, with the 37-10 and 5, I would have enough integrity to at least try to explain the unconscionable disparity. If I could not do so, as seems to be the case with the Ashlanders, I would be a bit embarrassed. I certainly would not dismiss it like it had no bearing on the outcome. Boy, we know you boys are desperate when you start the "lack of Christian spirit" argument. All I seek is a valid explanation of the 37-10 and 5. I conclude that none of you have any. So, this is probably a good place to conclued the thread. However, under the circumstances and with the facts as they are, I'll, of course, claim victory (and I didn't get 37 foul shots).

Now we have started getting whiny and personal, haven't we Tru Blu?. But, alas, still no facts. How about a believable explanation as to the 37-10 and 5 turnovers? If you can come up with one that is credible, I'll be the first to acknowledge it. Somehow posts that say that a pressing team doesn't necessarily commit more fouls fails the smell test. Keep in mind, we are saying 37-10 and 5 turnovers. How about something of substance? Logical arguments and rebuttals, Boys in Maroon, not manure.

All these posts defending Ashland and the officials are fine. However, no one as yet has offered a scintilla of believable information remotely explaining how one team presses the entire game and shoots 37 foul shots while the other does not press and shoots only 10. We are talking about a gross discrepency here. Twice as many foul shots under this scenerio is hard to imagine. Almost four times as many by the pressing team is unconscionable. If one of you partisans can offer a credible explanation, I'll refrain from posting what I believe to be the obvious. By the way, Tru Blu's last three paragraphs in post #135 offer nothing of substance but much opinion. I suppose we are to believe that RH lost because they missed 4 of their 10 foul shots and the 37-10 is of no consequence. I do give Tru Blu an "A" for fantasy. As for post # 141, Tru Blu, your team's heart was wearing a striped shirt and had proxide hair.

Indeed he is in the KHSAA H of F. However, it has to do with baseball rather than basketball. Also, Stan Musial is in the H of F but I don't believe I want him playing first base for my team today.

Good post. I agree.Scott has stuck it out when most would have quit.

I have never seen him officiate "top notches" but he doesn't do basketball justice.

I'm sure the officials did a good job at GC-Russell. I'll also bet the fouls and foul shots were fairly even and not remotely like what happened on Blazer Blvd. That does make a difference.

Another less than substantive rebuttal from Blazerland. Is this the best you guys can do? Why not just admit that you "confiscated" the game and leave it at that? You would at least show some credibility.

I don't argue opinion. I state facts and let you decide. Fact: Ashland pressed the whole game. Fact: RH did not press until the last minute or so. Fact: Ashland shot 37 foul shots. Fact: RH shot 10 foul shots. Fact: RH outscored Ashland by 16 from the field but lost by 20 at the foul line. Fact: Ashland was called for only 5 turnovers the whole game. Fact: Kouns officiates a disproportionate number of Ashland home game. Fact: Kouns made only one call negative to Ashland the entire game and it was a non-shooting foul. Fact: Kouns made some crutial calls usually when he was not the referee closest to the play. If you need itemization, read some of the other posts like #116 above. There are more facts and many opinions but this should suffice. I'm still waiting on a rebuttal.

Good to see a brave Ashlander finally post although, I'm sure even he will admit, that his "rebuttal" is less than weak. Somehow defending the fiasco-37-10 foul shots in favor of the pressing team, 5 turnovers, press whole game and commit 11 fouls-with "you could be wrong..." tells a lot more than was probably intended. Nonetheless, at least ballbrain broke the silence a little.

Well, of course you did. Would you care to give us some factual information about the game upon which you base your conclusion? In over 100 posts, there hasn't bveen a serious one with your viewpoint yet. Silence may be golden. However, it often, as in this fiasco, speaks volumes.

Brilliant analysis from one who didn't attend the game. Surely, he is merely trying to stoke the fire. Strange that we still have not gotten any rebuttals from Blazer Blvd.of my factual claims. But, then, what can they say? They should be embarrassed but, of course, they'd take this win any way they could get it.

Agreed. The only question may be if the officials take time to congratulate Biggs and give him a hug.

In the earlier thread, I asked who would be officiating the game because I was afraid that Kouns would be one of them. Now everyone knows why I was concerned. When one team presses the entire game and gets almost four times (37-10) as many foul shots as the other team that never pressed, I believe we could submit the tape of the game to Ripley's Believe It or Not. However, although I knew Ashland would shoot far more foul shots and win at the foul line and that Ashland would commit few fouls, I had no idea that the outcome would be as one-sided as it was tonight. As well as the fouls, I am also appalled that Ashland committed only 5 turnovers for the entire game. I am also concerned, but certainly not surprised, that Bonner was only called for one late foul. I was there sitting on the third row near the basket and anyone who thinks Bonner doesn't foul is less than honest.

Clyde is absolutely correct. The referees normally leave the floor immediately. Of course, they may have hung around to be presented the game ball. By the way, did any of the referees approach Coach Bush to shake his hand (no hug expected)? You know the answer as well as do I. As I said earlier, after they have time to digest what happened to them, this game should be all the motivation that RH's boys need for the next three or so years.

The guy who assigns officials is an Ashland graduate and former performer for its athletic program. Maybe a less connected assigning secretary would be preferable. In answer to the question of Newman, Kouns was "blacklisted" from RH games last year by Coach Fraley. Kouns seemed to have a problem with, among other issues, Chad Jackson's jersey. I don't want to imply that Kouns cheats. However, he does have a closeness to Ashland and its "mode of operation" on the floor. And, as I said in the other thread, favoritism is not always a conscious act. The subconscious, strongly influenced by familiarity as is the case here, can make a devastating difference in the end. As for Biggs hugging everyone, including the officials, I can believe he was euphoric. Those 37 foul shots probably saved his job- at least for a year.

Gee Bailey, you old maroonie you. Is that the best you can do? I'll bet that even you are embarrassed by what you saw.

Actually, he did blow his whistle more than five times but only one inconsequential time against Ashland. He called fouls, travelling, and various and sundry other turnovers and, of course, the convenient "possession" timeout but all of those were in one direction. Another item of interest is that Ashland committed only 5 turnovers for the entire game. How's that for near perfection?

Bonner is one of the most "gifted" players I have ever seen. He holds, shoves, butts, uses his various football moves, etc. but never commits a foul. How can you stop such a player particularly when you are in early foul trouble as were Kennedy, Parsons, and a couple more?

Defensive stops are difficult when the other team is living on the foul line. Don't take my word for it, Check it out. Ashland shot 22 foul shots in the second half. That is 1.375 per minute.

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of my facts from the "victors". All in all, since all but two of RH's players return next year and most for two or three more years, this game should be the only motivation they will need for the future when they play the decidedly less talented Ashland. Now, that's certainly a bit of silver lining to the cloud dumped on them tonight.

Probably one of his "bigger" calls was when the teams were scrambling for a loose ball at a crutial time in the fourth quarter and the official granted Biggs a timeout from the other side of the floor although Ashland didn't have any more control of the ball than did RH. Result: out of bounds to Ashland.

Thank you, Newman, for your honesty.

Thank you, LRCW. However, anyone who follows this stuff could have made the same predictions. Ashland shot 37 foul shots. Rose Hill shot 10. Rose Hill outrscored Ashland by 16 from the field but lost by 20 at the foul line. You can throw out the last four fouls by RH because they were to stop the clock. RH still committed over twice as many as Ashland. Ashland pressed the whole game. Rose Hill never pressed. The official mentioned in my earlier posts called one, yes one, foul on Ashland the whole game and that was a nonshooting foul with about 4 1/2 minutes left in the game. He called nothing negative against Ashland other than the one foul- no turnovers, no nothing. He called several fouls against RH as well as a material number of turnovers. Now before some of you partisans get too upset let me say that I am merely reporting the facts from the available statistics. Disprove what I said in the previous thread and in this post if you can. You cannot do so. I'm not crying "foul" or "cheat". I am merely stating how Ashland won with facts that cannot be denied. And, as LRCW stated, I predicted it long before the game. By the way, Fairview will be in a similar scenerio Friday night if we have our resident official. All in all, the game should be a wake up call for RH for the next 3 or 4 years. Under normal circumstances, they should have the upper hand. Tonight's affair was obviously not normal circumstances.

I decided to watch something of substance so I watched "The Enforcer". Nonetheless, I did see clips of Matthews, Olbermann, and Maddow vying for the first chance to kiss Obama's hind quarters. Other than that, I was surprised to learn that Benz was an American. All in all, I have concluded that, when he offers handouts to so many, someone is paying for them and I am one of the group of "someones". He is, from his past and present mentors and associates, obviously a socialist and who really knows what else. Sadly, we have reached the point where there are more voters who take from the system than pay the bills. He is dangerous. There is much more of Marx in him than Lincoln.