(02-15-2014 09:45 PM)Mimi Wrote:  Most likely result of a technical?

UConn gets 2 points- no game effect.

The refs can be swayed. They are humans. They did not set out to screw Memphis. They were influenced by the environment. That influence can be countered to some extent.

(02-15-2014 09:50 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 09:45 PM)Mimi Wrote:  Most likely result of a technical?

UConn gets 2 points- no game effect.

The refs can be swayed. They are humans. They did not set out to screw Memphis. They were influenced by the environment. That influence can be countered to some extent.

MemX in another thread offers a different postulation.

It could.

Or it could not.

As you mentioned- who knows?

Maybe UConn wins in regulation- maybe Memphis wins.

So- the one thing we really do know- based on their shooting percentages- UConn score 1.6 points from a bench technical. The rest- in this game- no one knows.

I thought Cal bitched so much about refs that he changed his tune second half of his tenure here. Our players grew up under him. Saw the team surround Dixon when he cried after a foul today.

(02-15-2014 09:50 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 09:44 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 09:27 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  I'd have loved to see him get T'd up or even ejected. There was some BS going on out there.

I'm also not mad that he chose to do it his way. I've never seen any proof or even evidence to suggest that a 35 year old coach mouthing off to the refs gets his team calls, neither in the short arc nor the long arc.

You can't prove something like that. But let's give it odds.

What are the odds it would've been worse if he'd ridden the refs more? 5%? Is it likely UConn shoots 45 free throws if he's harder on them? 50? UConn is essentially at the upper limit of free throws you can shoot in a game without being fouled repeatedly in the last 3 minutes to extend the game.

I'd never try to mathematically approach this, but I would bet you that the ratio of our free throws to opponent free throws, at 4:1, is > 2 standard deviations from normal (ie at or above the 95th percentile). The number of FT attempts/game of the #1 team at FTA/game is 32.6, indicating again, at 36, you are well above 2 standard deviations from normal. Connecticut is ranked 236/350 in FTA/game. The variance from the norm is extremely high

You have to predict that any influencing factor is going to reduce the variance rather than increase it given how far from normal it already is.

So . . .if riding the effects has any positive effects, this is the game where it will be most likely to work

I'd put it closer to 50%. It's just as likely a ref gives Pastner a T or at least gets irritated with the whining and goes heavier on the whistles. Hell, he freaks and he is likely kicked out like in the Ollie clip.

This argument is extremely, extremely dumb.

Akin to asking "well, what if I had gotten the NEXT lotto ticket down in the stack. I mean, the one I bought was a loser, but I bet the one I DIDN'T buy would've won."

It's not dumb. And it's not close to 50%. You have a game that has a high degree of variance from normal. It is much more likely that an intervention brings the game back closer to the norm rather than drives it farther away.

Also, Napier's 3 wasn't nick king's fault. Giffey set a screen to Joe's left. Napier went to Joe's right. Joe just stood there and watched because he expected napier to use the screen. Then Napier hit a 3 with King as the closest guy. It wasn't King's man to switch onto because there was no screen and no switch called. Joe just let him go. Go back and watch it again.

(02-15-2014 09:53 PM)Mimi Wrote:  It could.

Or it could not.

As you mentioned- who knows?

Maybe UConn wins in regulation- maybe Memphis wins.

So- the one thing we really do know- based on their shooting percentages- UConn score 1.6 points from a bench technical. The rest- in this game- no one knows.

Fine, have it your way. There was nothing Pastner, or any coach, can ever do to prevent a bad whistle. Coach K and Tom Izzo are just the luckiest coaches on earth.

(02-15-2014 09:56 PM)jgardne Wrote:  It's not dumb. And it's not close to 50%. You have a game that has a high degree of variance from normal. It is much more likely that an intervention brings the game back closer to the norm rather than drives it farther away.

Also, Napier's 3 wasn't nick king's fault. Giffey set a screen to Joe's left. Napier went to Joe's right. Joe just stood there and watched because he expected napier to use the screen. Then Napier hit a 3 with King as the closest guy. It wasn't King's man to switch onto because there was no screen and no switch called. Joe just let him go. Go back and watch it again.

It is dumb, and it is close to 50%. Why don't you provide some proof, otherwise we're throwing back opinions with no basis in reality.

I haven't said anything about Nick King in this thread. Are you grinding an axe or something?

(02-15-2014 09:57 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 09:53 PM)Mimi Wrote:  It could.

Or it could not.

As you mentioned- who knows?

Maybe UConn wins in regulation- maybe Memphis wins.

So- the one thing we really do know- based on their shooting percentages- UConn score 1.6 points from a bench technical. The rest- in this game- no one knows.

Fine, have it your way. There was nothing Pastner, or any coach, can ever do to prevent a bad whistle. Coach K and Tom Izzo are just the luckiest coaches on earth.

That's more like it. Bravo!

So, I posted the main thread right before leaving for dinner. I had no intention of "fact" being any part of that post. Must have had something else on my mind and didn't get it deleted.

My point, as some have agreed, that if you don't express your displeasure of the way the calls are going, it's not going to stop. There were some terrible calls, there were some nit pick calls and there were several phantom calls. We go the benefit of a few no calls ourselves.

You don't have to curse, you don't have to yell, but you have to let the ref know with a stern look on your face that the game is not being called the same on both ends of the floor, and that's all you are asking.

I think it was Mimi who said the refs got caught up in the home crowd environment. Sometimes you have to wake the refs up from the glare of the lights just as you do the players.

I thought it was a great game, we shot the ball well, rebounded well, even though we kicked and fumbled the ball around a lot.

1:15 and it ours to win even with the free throw margin.

I like the Ohio State analogy where they shot twice as many free throws as we did, but at least we got 20 in that game. Plus, and this will always be my stand on that game, we never should have played Ohio State, Xavier should have beat them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

(02-15-2014 09:57 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 09:53 PM)Mimi Wrote:  It could.

Or it could not.

As you mentioned- who knows?

Maybe UConn wins in regulation- maybe Memphis wins.

So- the one thing we really do know- based on their shooting percentages- UConn score 1.6 points from a bench technical. The rest- in this game- no one knows.

Fine, have it your way. There was nothing Pastner, or any coach, can ever do to prevent a bad whistle. Coach K and Tom Izzo are just the luckiest coaches on earth.

Now now.

I am not arguing that. Take it easy.

Simply saying that you are correct in that maybe pitching a fit or getting a technical may have helped. Just like maybe playing player X or player Y may have helped.

But also recognizing that it may have hurt.

We simply do not know. The only thing we KNOW is that two free throws come from a bench technical- so they get 1.6 points on average.

Sometimes other coaches get techs and it helps their teams. Sometimes it does not. Th tradeoff of a point or two for perceived favored treatment is the million dollar question.

As applied today- it either causes us to lose by 1.6 in regulation, or lose by more than that as the technical fires up the home crowd and our kids see the deficit grow by a few and drop a notch-or it works.

We do have a lot of folks here who do this style below after any loss:

Pastner, try something, anything!!!
Followed by,
C'mon Pastner, let the player play through his mistakes.

It is oxymoronic.

This is ridiculous. Every coach in the country works the refs and knows how to do it to get maximum effect. When to push, when to make a big issue/statement. And it changes the complexion of the game many, many times afterwards. Happens all the time. If there was ever a time to make a big statement over a clearly biased officiated game, today was it. Early enough to make the case, and absorb the technical free throw(s). I thought he coached a good game today otherwise. Our plays out of timeouts were just excellent more than once today.

(02-15-2014 09:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 09:56 PM)jgardne Wrote:  It's not dumb. And it's not close to 50%. You have a game that has a high degree of variance from normal. It is much more likely that an intervention brings the game back closer to the norm rather than drives it farther away.

Also, Napier's 3 wasn't nick king's fault. Giffey set a screen to Joe's left. Napier went to Joe's right. Joe just stood there and watched because he expected napier to use the screen. Then Napier hit a 3 with King as the closest guy. It wasn't King's man to switch onto because there was no screen and no switch called. Joe just let him go. Go back and watch it again.

It is dumb, and it is close to 50%. Why don't you provide some proof, otherwise we're throwing back opinions with no basis in reality.

I haven't said anything about Nick King in this thread. Are you grinding an axe or something?

You said it about his perimeter D on that play in some thread. I remember the play clearly because I rewound it to watch it again because I was so confused as to how napier had gotten such an open look. No energy to reply in the other thread as well

(02-15-2014 07:15 PM)Joe1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 07:09 PM)Tiger46 Wrote:  If Cal was coaching that game today, no way there is such a free throw discrepancy. Fact.

I told my wife this same thing. Kirk would have gotten a T or even pull his team off the floor. I'm not bashing Josh either, but I sure wish he would stand up to the refs in situations like this better than what he does presently.

Didn't say a thing about the guy standing out of bounds until the next dead ball and then all he did was point to the baseline say a couple of words and then walk away.

This is ridiculous.

For any decent ref....."Working them" doesn't do crap".

For some, it may have the opposite effect.

For younger ones it might work occasionally.

Officials get graded by supervisors and their main priority I assure you is to keep their supervisors pleased.

My opinion is that coaches who focus on their own team and not officiating have the best results.

(02-15-2014 11:26 PM)MGR Wrote:  This is ridiculous.

For any decent ref....."Working them" doesn't do crap".

For some, it may have the opposite effect.

For younger ones it might work occasionally.

Officials get graded by supervisors and their main priority I assure you is to keep their supervisors pleased.

My opinion is that coaches who focus on their own team and not officiating have the best results.

Officials know who are on the sideline and either consciously or subconsciously they call a different game depending on who is on the sideline.

Ironically enough

Cal got his T in tonight's game at 8:14 left and his team up by 1
They were outscored 21-10 afterwards

Kentucky was called for 8 fouls after the T, Florida only 2.

Prior to the T Kentucky had 9 fouls called, Florida 14.

Seems like Cal's "working the refs" had the opposite effect of what some post think.....

(02-15-2014 11:54 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 11:26 PM)MGR Wrote:  This is ridiculous.

For any decent ref....."Working them" doesn't do crap".

For some, it may have the opposite effect.

For younger ones it might work occasionally.

Officials get graded by supervisors and their main priority I assure you is to keep their supervisors pleased.

My opinion is that coaches who focus on their own team and not officiating have the best results.

Officials know who are on the sideline and either consciously or subconsciously they call a different game depending on who is on the sideline.

I would encourage you to read Mem-x's thread as he used to be a D1 official.

(02-15-2014 07:46 PM)tigers1125 Wrote:  Part of this is true. Josh does not get the respect from refs that come with experience. Also, he does not work the refs very much at all or if so, too quietly. But some refs treat him fairly because they respect his integrity.

Those refs today wouldn't have treated John Wooden fairly if he was coaching his last game in his career and had just been inducted in the coaching hall of fame. They were determined UCONN was not going to lose that game. It's one of three things. They either want to stop in town and eat after the game and don't want to face hometown fans, they don't want to get mugged at the airport or they are bought and paid for. It's the worse case of officiating I've seen in 54 years of watching the Tigers play. If we'd won the game in the last 2 minutes I would have said the same thing.

I don;t think they were worried about the outcome.

They just manifestly sucked and they were caught up much more than normal in the Napier hype and the home crowd hype.

Systematically whistled our guys for the same stuff they did not whistle the home team for.

Apparently we were too good to foul..Even Shaq at the end right after Napier's game tying and one mystery meat foul call on Geron for- getting out of his way. THAT was a foul.. Shaq getting hit was not. Maybe Shaq was not fouled. Then neither was the princess.

(02-15-2014 07:15 PM)Joe1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 07:09 PM)Tiger46 Wrote:  If Cal was coaching that game today, no way there is such a free throw discrepancy. Fact.

I told my wife this same thing. Kirk would have gotten a T or even pull his team off the floor. I'm not bashing Josh either, but I sure wish he would stand up to the refs in situations like this better than what he does presently.

You say you go to the games and you say Pastner doesn't work the refs? You are completely crazy.