Around the Big East

I hate the “can’t call it there” narrative.

Is it a foul? Yes.
So not calling it at that point is some how fair to the team on the other end of the illegal screen?

What I will say is that this should have been called an illegal screen all game and idk whether or not uconn was on the bad end of it all night. But the call that was made was the correct one. And obvious at that.
 
Amaseinyourface said:
I hate the “can’t call it there” narrative.

Is it a foul? Yes.
So not calling it at that point is some how fair to the team on the other end of the illegal screen?

What I will say is that this should have been called an illegal screen all game and idk whether or not uconn was on the bad end of it all night. But the call that was made was the correct one. And obvious at that.
Click to expand...
I don't want 50-50 could go either way calls made there. But, if you take the stance of not calling just about anything short of assault to not decide the game, then you are deciding the game in favor of the team who committed the infraction. I saw the screener do three things wrong. The feet were set wider than the shoulders (by a large margin), the screener moved into the player being screened (pretty obviously) and the screener had their arms and elbows raised and slightly extended (this by itself should be a no call at that point in the game). But, it was an obvious illegal screen and this board would have been apocalyptic if SJU lost a game because something like this was not called.
 
Here’s where you guys are way wrong if you saw the game; the game was physical, hard fought with a ton of “play ons”. Clark made a big short jumper in the lane early in the 4th that was an obvious chicken wing push off in clear and open sight, play on. Fine.. no problem. But calls need to stay in the context of the way the game was called for 39 minutes and 57 seconds, not standing holier than thou on replays taken completely out of context with the way the game was managed up until then.
 
rutld1 said:
Sucks to have a game end that way. But she set two moving screens on same play. It was the right call.
Click to expand...
The problem was that Sportscenter brought on Sue Bird and Diana Tarasi after the game, as "experts", to give their thoughts on the call. Totally unbiased opinons there, of course!

Moving screens are like holding in the NFL. You can literally call it on every play. It needs to be better defined, or maybe even reformed to give the screener a little more leeway.
 
weathermannyc said:
I don't want 50-50 could go either way calls made there. But, if you take the stance of not calling just about anything short of assault to not decide the game, then you are deciding the game in favor of the team who committed the infraction. I saw the screener do three things wrong. The feet were set wider than the shoulders (by a large margin), the screener moved into the player being screened (pretty obviously) and the screener had their arms and elbows raised and slightly extended (this by itself should be a no call at that point in the game). But, it was an obvious illegal screen and this board would have been apocalyptic if SJU lost a game because something like this was not called.
Click to expand...
Exactly, both feet moved numerous times while defender attempted to get above the screen, screener also raised her arms from her side to chest level to further impede defender. Call had to be made
 
logen said:
Just more talking head nonsense and why I hate what they have done to sports. The players should decide games and everyone who “knows ball” knows it. There are bad calls all through any game which is why you swallow the whistle in that circumstance unless it is an absolute public mugging.
Just two jerks changing the narrative after the fact, a horrible call and there is no way around it.
Click to expand...
It was an intentional foul to free up Conn best player for an open game deciding shot and it worked to give Conn an advantage. Blatant fouls should not decide games with seconds left. The players did decide the game. The Conn player committed a blatant foul.
 
Amaseinyourface said:
I hate the “can’t call it there” narrative.

Is it a foul? Yes.
So not calling it at that point is some how fair to the team on the other end of the illegal screen?

What I will say is that this should have been called an illegal screen all game and idk whether or not uconn was on the bad end of it all night. But the call that was made was the correct one. And obvious at that.
Click to expand...
All those other moving screens that were allegedly not called—They would be all over the internet if there were any as nearly blatant as this one was. I surely did not see any this intentional.
 
I don’t agree that there need to be a certain flow to the game where either you call it or you don’t based on some fictional “flow” and interpreted as “letting em play”. If it’s a foul it’s a foul and can be called at any time. Just because teams have gotten away with clear fouls earlier in game doesn’t guarantee calls later. It was a clear foul. Refs are under no obligation to, nor should they be criticized for calling a clear foul even if maybe there weren’t others called that game.
 
lawmanfan said:
I was never able to figure out this season if he's actually terrible or if Neptune managed to horribly misuse both him and Bamba (along with most of the rest of the roster). Bamba I know has a lot of ability that went to waste. Don't know about Ware.
Click to expand...
He’s pretty bad . You never know when a kid leaves Kentucky if they were just never given a shot like Bryce Hopkins.

I would have taken him last year. I would still probably take him this year as the 10th or 11th guy, but he’s not good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top