(02-10-2013 04:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 10:55 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 09:24 AM)Knightshift Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 05:51 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  That over and back cal in the first half among others def showed some home cooking was going on

Yep, and all the bumps and hacks on Clanton that were not called were "home cooking," too.

Keep making excuses, bro.

... A guy like Clanton could be called for dipping his shoulder on about every time he touches the ball. I realize that isn't how basketball is referee'd in the modern era. But he dips his shoulder and uses his off arm often. At Duke he would foul on offense alone .

That is true about Clanton. He initiates the contact almost everytime and even if a defender is standing in position waiting on him; Clanton is rarely called for a foul on that move. On the other hand he would be crazy to stop doing it, if the refs are not going to call a foul on him.

Clanton did get called for one offensive foul. The thing is every ref seems to be highly inconsistent with that call. They seem to look more at how much of an advantage a player gets more than whether or not what they did was a foul. There's also the factor of who is guarding you. If you get a mismatch with a guard you almost aren't allowed to back them down. If they decide to flop, forget it.

Ty Armstrong isn't going to draw many charges because when someone lowers their shoulder into him he isn't going to go flying backwards. He is going to hang around slightly out of position and try to block the shot, and probably get called for a foul himself. It sucks but these days it seems like it is as important to be a good actor as it is to actually be in the right position when it comes to taking a charge.

All that said, I don't think Clanton should have been called for a bunch of charges yesterday. I do think the charge called against ECU (Armstrong maybe, I don't remember) when Spurlock was on a post player was one of those BS "guard launches themselves through the air" calls. I mean with the way some players go flying on a charge you would think they were guarding the juggernaut or something but it's hard to blame them when that's about what you have to do to get one called.

(02-10-2013 04:29 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 04:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 10:55 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 09:24 AM)Knightshift Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 05:51 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  That over and back cal in the first half among others def showed some home cooking was going on

Yep, and all the bumps and hacks on Clanton that were not called were "home cooking," too.

Keep making excuses, bro.

... A guy like Clanton could be called for dipping his shoulder on about every time he touches the ball. I realize that isn't how basketball is referee'd in the modern era. But he dips his shoulder and uses his off arm often. At Duke he would foul on offense alone .

That is true about Clanton. He initiates the contact almost everytime and even if a defender is standing in position waiting on him; Clanton is rarely called for a foul on that move. On the other hand he would be crazy to stop doing it, if the refs are not going to call a foul on him.

Clanton did get called for one offensive foul. The thing is every ref seems to be highly inconsistent with that call. They seem to look more at how much of an advantage a player gets more than whether or not what they did was a foul. There's also the factor of who is guarding you. If you get a mismatch with a guard you almost aren't allowed to back them down. If they decide to flop, forget it.

And that charge in the 2nd half was laughable...as the ECU player was clearly moving even at the time of impact...and I think another ref made a "make-up call" to UCF's way within the next minute...seeing how one of his partners screwed up the charge call so badly.

Sadly, some refs "anticipate" fouls...vs letting the play "play out".