(03-16-2012 09:55 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: (03-16-2012 09:29 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: 16 would have beaten a 1 if the refs decided they were going to call the game fairly. Never seen such biased and blatantly wrong calls being made. Syracuse fans were unlucky Fab Melo was ruled ineligible, but very lucky they had the refs on their side.
Do you include all of the favorable calls made to benefit UNC-Asheville in the first half and second half, or only those few bad calls at the end of the game?
The experts agree that the Bulldog crossed the 3-point arch before the ball hit the rim, sorry, his bad, not a bad call.
The experts agree that had the correct call been made on the out of bounds call that Triche would have shot from the charity stripe and not just gotten the ball back.
Experts also agree that UNC-Asheville still had enough time to win, had they made shots.
Experts also agree that the officiating was poor the whole game and both ways.
We understand you hate Syracuse. Not sure why. They have done well for the Big East and have earned the Big East money, which your school will soon be enjoying. you should be cheering on all Big East teams to go as far as possible, financially speaking.
Homerism here at its best. First let me say that the lane violation was not just a good call, it was a great call. While I have heard some say that you rarely see that call made, it is because people rarely cross the free throw line from outside, because it is so blatant. They had to make that call not only because he crossed the line early, but because the person who violated the lane was the one who got the rebound, precisely because no one attempts to block out a guy who is not supposed to be there. Now, that said, the rest of what you said is not true. The "experts"
did not say that if the correct call was made Triche would have been shooting free throws; they said you either have to call a foul,
or it is Asheville's ball, but you can’t just give the ball back to Syracuse in some sort of hybrid call. They did not say it
was a foul, just that if they were thinking it was a foul, you have to call it, or it is a turnover. IT is as simple as that. I also never once heard them or anyone else say the officiating was bad "both ways," as all they talked about, and anyone talking about the game afterward, was how one sided the officiating was. If you think anyone said it was bad both ways, then you have a serious case of hearing what you want to hear, instead of hearing what was actually said. Now I will give you some sort of pass for not realizing how bad the officiating was, because fans of my own time are blatantly biased when it comes to officiating, so I see it a lot. But the officials gave Syracuse every opportunity to win, and made it very hard for Asheville to have any shot of pulling it off.
And the "saying they had enough time to win" is bogus, because those calls changed the game from a one possession game where you can play offense and strait up defense, to where you have to make it a free throw shooting contest and foul every trip up the court. That would be like if Syracuse was down by three, Asheville cold **** a Syracuse player, take the ball go down and score, and the refs don’t call anything, but them reassure Beheim by saying "well there's 45 seconds left, you still have enough time to win." I don’t think you would still think that makes the blown call any better. When you lose one point* on one of the most blatant goal tends I have ever seen, I don’t mean most blatant not called I mean most blatant period, which managed to hit the trifecta of coming off the backboard, being on its way down,
and being over the rim, and is somehow not called , and lose one possession on a blatant bad call in the last two minutes of the game which would allow you to bring it to a 2 or 1 point game, you can’t sit back and say “well they had enough time to win.” They were not given the opportunity.
I don’t like or hate Syracuse, but from the time I watched the game one, which was around the time of the missed goaltend call, Syracuse got the benefit of EVERY whistle, and Asheville was more or less playing 5 on 8. And even with that, they stayed within one possession for most of the game. With fair officiating, they likely win that game, with at least a 70% chance to win.
*they only lost one point, because he missed what would have been to make the three point play, so they ended up with one point instead of two
