(02-23-2014 12:05 AM)L1C4 Wrote:  UC got away with so much that 2nd half it was incredible. From the goaltend that wasn't called to what should have been a technical when they had no timeouts.

Again if you think that should have been a technical you don't understand the rule. A technical is not given unless a timeout can be rewarded. By rule you cannot call timeout while falling out of bounds. Titus was falling out of bounds so the ref ignored the timeout signal. It was the right call, but it was still a bonehead play from Titus.

After such a terrific two games, the shame is, it will be no more.

(02-23-2014 11:27 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  After such a terrific two games, the shame is, it will be no more.

Stupid conference realignment. Ruined everything.

(02-22-2014 11:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If they can find no video of the player touching the ball, that IS evidence, based on what they have, to overturn the call. It was not like they were unclear shots: You see air.

But the later shots that showed the change of direction, indicate an unavailable angle would have shown the contact. But on because it was called out on UC, that new angle then put the decision in doubt, and thus they had to reverse it.

I think we're talking past each other: If the earlier replays showed air between the UC player and the ball, I agree that would be evidence that he didn't touch the ball. But, since a different replay later showed that he did in fact touch the ball, any "air" seen in the first replay was an illusion due to camera angle or possibly wishful thinking on the part of the viewer. In any event, it wasn't a legitimate basis for overturning the call on the floor. (I've replayed the sequence several times and IHMO the first replays clearly shows that the ball changed direction by 10-15 degrees after it contacted the UC player's foot. The later replay confirmed that to be true. But, maybe my interpretation of the first replays was wishful thinking on my part.)

(02-23-2014 11:30 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 11:27 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  After such a terrific two games, the shame is, it will be no more.

Stupid conference realignment. Ruined everything.

"Our" Big East was a thing of beauty!!!

I will ALWAYS remember it.
Flossy out...

(02-23-2014 12:28 PM)HRFlossY Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 11:30 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 11:27 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  After such a terrific two games, the shame is, it will be no more.

Stupid conference realignment. Ruined everything.

"Our" Big East was a thing of beauty!!!

I will ALWAYS remember it.
Flossy out...

Just another Saturday Afternoon in the "BIG EAST"...not for the faint of heart...

This game along with the Syracuse and Pittsburgh game last week should be Archived as this years closest Old Big East battles. Still miss the excitement all those classic Big East games exhumed every week.

(02-23-2014 11:40 AM)mgrody2 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If they can find no video of the player touching the ball, that IS evidence, based on what they have, to overturn the call. It was not like they were unclear shots: You see air.

But the later shots that showed the change of direction, indicate an unavailable angle would have shown the contact. But on because it was called out on UC, that new angle then put the decision in doubt, and thus they had to reverse it.

I think we're talking past each other: If the earlier replays showed air between the UC player and the ball, I agree that would be evidence that he didn't touch the ball. But, since a different replay later showed that he did in fact touch the ball, any "air" seen in the first replay was an illusion due to camera angle or possibly wishful thinking on the part of the viewer. In any event, it wasn't a legitimate basis for overturning the call on the floor. (I've replayed the sequence several times and IHMO the first replays clearly shows that the ball changed direction by 10-15 degrees after it contacted the UC player's foot. The later replay confirmed that to be true. But, maybe my interpretation of the first replays was wishful thinking on my part.)

Not really. There are plenty of instances where a replay shows one thing, and a different angle shows something else. But if you don't have that other angle, and you clearly "see" something, that is not an illusion. What you don't realize is YOU saw the change of direction on one of the camara angles, however the officials DID NOT have access to that angle. That was why they went back a second time when someone informed him that they had two more views. They saw three angles that did not show any contact and reversed it. They then went back, and saw an angle that showed a change of direction. To call it an illusion is much because had it been called out on UofL, they still could not overturn it to call it out on UC because they never saw it touch a UC player. Still didn't. But the change of direction was enough to change it back to inconclusive

(02-23-2014 03:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 11:40 AM)mgrody2 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If they can find no video of the player touching the ball, that IS evidence, based on what they have, to overturn the call. It was not like they were unclear shots: You see air.

But the later shots that showed the change of direction, indicate an unavailable angle would have shown the contact. But on because it was called out on UC, that new angle then put the decision in doubt, and thus they had to reverse it.

I think we're talking past each other: If the earlier replays showed air between the UC player and the ball, I agree that would be evidence that he didn't touch the ball. But, since a different replay later showed that he did in fact touch the ball, any "air" seen in the first replay was an illusion due to camera angle or possibly wishful thinking on the part of the viewer. In any event, it wasn't a legitimate basis for overturning the call on the floor. (I've replayed the sequence several times and IHMO the first replays clearly shows that the ball changed direction by 10-15 degrees after it contacted the UC player's foot. The later replay confirmed that to be true. But, maybe my interpretation of the first replays was wishful thinking on my part.)

Not really. There are plenty of instances where a replay shows one thing, and a different angle shows something else. But if you don't have that other angle, and you clearly "see" something, that is not an illusion. What you don't realize is YOU saw the change of direction on one of the camara angles, however the officials DID NOT have access to that angle. That was why they went back a second time when someone informed him that they had two more views. They saw three angles that did not show any contact and reversed it. They then went back, and saw an angle that showed a change of direction. To call it an illusion is much because had it been called out on UofL, they still could not overturn it to call it out on UC because they never saw it touch a UC player. Still didn't. But the change of direction was enough to change it back to inconclusive

Just to be clear, the change of ball direction that I noted was on the original replays. Unfortunately, the refs seemed to be fixated on seeing if the ball touched the UC player's hand and ignored its contact with his foot. (This according to the CBC announcers.) The replay that led to the second reversal showed nothing that couldn't be discerned from the original replays, in my opinion.

I know what you said. Just to be clear, the officials did not have access to all of the replays we saw on TV even during the first review. They only had 3 views, none of which showed the change of directions

(02-23-2014 01:09 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  This game along with the Syracuse and Pittsburgh game last week should be Archived as this years closest Old Big East battles. Still miss the excitement all those classic Big East games exhumed every week.

I miss the old conference too but to be completely honest, from a basketball standpoint, I actually love this conference. I love having one of the greatest ever in UConn and continuing to build that rivalry, I love being back with Memphis, and seeing SMU's meteoric rise has been a highlight of the season for me. Plus, Temple will be back kicking arse very very soon. Half the conference will be in the dance which is exactly what the Big East did every year. I guess part of me felt like UC in particular never really fit in that well with the St. John's and Providences and Villanovas of the world even when the program was fully rebuilt, whereas with this conference, it feels a little bit more natural in terms of fit.

Then again, I may just be saying that because we're winning the conference right now

Edited to reiterate that what I said above is strictly, again, in terms of hoops. My opinion on the football aspect is certainly not the same.

Looking for a rubber match come AAC tourney time.