STL Officiating

[kstarheel]

I hate that tournament. Not sure we'll ever win in St. Louis.... bad officiating or not.

I'm hoping this team responds to the loss like last year (obviously a different situation) and the way the '06 team responded.

[dregn]

Why not??

Based on what he quoted, I think it had to do with his remark toward tropicalshock. I usually enjoy shockrefs opinions and enjoy many of his posts, but I don't like when he decides to throw in what appears to be snarky comments disparaging others thoughts / comments / opinions such as he did there.

[ShockerGorilla]

What are the odds of us having Mr. Self officiate one of our games in the tournament? Does he normally do any games in the Dance?

[Shockitude]

What are the odds of us having Mr. Self officiate one of our games in the tournament? Does he normally do any games in the Dance?

He would be a perfect fit at the NCAA Division II Tournament.

[Rlh04d]

Although it has nothing really to do with this subject, the one thing that utterly confuses me about that IllState game is pretty simple: Why wasn't Ragland the guy with the ball at the end?

I love Toure and Garrett. But Ragland is consistently the best shooter on our team. He has the highest FG%, and the highest 3pt FG%. He was clearly the hottest hand we had in that game, on 5-9 FGs with a perfect 4-4 from 3. The shot from Toure ... fine. He's a solid shooter, was more or less open, and had to make a quick decision. But the play to Stutz we had time to figure out going in ... seriously, is a fadeaway from Garrett the best game plan we had there? If we have to get it to someone for a last second shot at the end of the game, it should be Rags. Especially in that game, where he was the only good shooter we had. The second choice should have been Toure. Garrett should have only been an option if he was under the basket or wide open, neither of which was the case.

As for the officiating ... I've considered going back to watch the game again to see just how bad the officiating was, but it's too depressing. It boggles my mind that a referee can be unprepared for a physical game, though. What, you go into a game with a set expectation for the game, and if it's not what you expected, you can't adapt until 30 minutes in? The game was out of control because the referees failed to get it under control.

[vancedave56]

I haven't watched the replay of the final seconds, but it is possible Ragland was denied the basketball.

[pinstripers]

If I remember right, somebody just inbounded the ball to Toure. I was thinking at the time that I would have preferred Joe.

[Shockitude]

I also wish Joe had the ball at the end. He's the best pure shooter on the team. He penetrates and finishes well. He can dish if needed. He can pull up and hit a quick jump shot on the drop of a dime. He's proven these capabilities as recent as last year in the OT win in the NIT at Virginia Tech.

Murry's shot barely drew iron and Stutz's shot, while on line, didn't have a chance because it too was well short.

[WuDrWu]

What are the odds of us having Mr. Self officiate one of our games in the tournament? Does he normally do any games in the Dance?

If inclusion is performance based, none.

[Kung Wu]

Although it has nothing really to do with this subject, the one thing that utterly confuses me about that IllState game is pretty simple: Why wasn't Ragland the guy with the ball at the end?

I love Toure and Garrett. But Ragland is consistently the best shooter on our team. He has the highest FG%, and the highest 3pt FG%. He was clearly the hottest hand we had in that game, on 5-9 FGs with a perfect 4-4 from 3. The shot from Toure ... fine. He's a solid shooter, was more or less open, and had to make a quick decision. But the play to Stutz we had time to figure out going in ... seriously, is a fadeaway from Garrett the best game plan we had there? If we have to get it to someone for a last second shot at the end of the game, it should be Rags. Especially in that game, where he was the only good shooter we had. The second choice should have been Toure. Garrett should have only been an option if he was under the basket or wide open, neither of which was the case.

As for the officiating ... I've considered going back to watch the game again to see just how bad the officiating was, but it's too depressing. It boggles my mind that a referee can be unprepared for a physical game, though. What, you go into a game with a set expectation for the game, and if it's not what you expected, you can't adapt until 30 minutes in? The game was out of control because the referees failed to get it under control.

We only needed 2 points and had 0.9 on the clock. The closer in you get it, the higher the percentage shot. What play involving Ragland could you draw up that would have given us a better shot with those constraints?

[WuDrWu]

I also wish Joe had the ball at the end. He's the best pure shooter on the team. He penetrates and finishes well. He can dish if needed. He can pull up and hit a quick jump shot on the drop of a dime. He's proven these capabilities as recent as last year in the OT win in the NIT at Virginia Tech.

Murry's shot barely drew iron and Stutz's shot, while on line, didn't have a chance because it too was well short.

Both plays were supposed to go Joe. The first, Toure' was wide open and really went undefended for most of the court...after the fact, you really can't argue with the shot. Joe was the 1st option on the OOB play (same play we ran to Kyles against VCU) but it was guarded. Actually, the lob to Ben is option 1, but it's more of a "show" option.

[WuDrWu]

My point is sometimes the other guy has a say, and Joe wasn't open, as much as we tried to get it to him.

[shockmonster]

I also wish Joe had the ball at the end. He's the best pure shooter on the team. He penetrates and finishes well. He can dish if needed. He can pull up and hit a quick jump shot on the drop of a dime. He's proven these capabilities as recent as last year in the OT win in the NIT at Virginia Tech.

Murry's shot barely drew iron and Stutz's shot, while on line, didn't have a chance because it too was well short.

Look, second guess and be a Sunday morning QB all you want but if you look at what happened, Joe had the ball in his hands (when we were ahead by 1) to make a play to someone with 50 seconds left and he took the ball to the hoop and missed a short, contested layup in the lane. We got the ball back (behind by 1) and Toure was given a chance to make a play by himself or pass it to others. Toure's shot (17 footer) was just as good as Joe's (22 footer) on the wing with a player who would have jumped out and contested it (I would have preferred Toure to take it to the basket with his length and possibly draw a foul). On the third possession with 1.1 seconds, Garrett was the only open pass and he got a great shot that he missed. Sometimes you can blame coach but not this time. We just didn't make a play when we had to.

[Rlh04d]

We only needed 2 points and had 0.9 on the clock. The closer in you get it, the higher the percentage shot. What play involving Ragland could you draw up that would have given us a better shot with those constraints?

The same shot Stutz took is fine with me. Stutz is a decent shooter, but I have no doubt that Rags has a better shot at making a quick turn around fadeaway than he does. I would think that Stutz has about a 25% chance of making that shot and Rags has a 50% chance.

Hell, I'd rather have Rags shoot a 3 for the win in that situation than Stutz taking a shot that he clearly isn't comfortable taking.

I don't think that Stutz is the kind of player that can make that kind of shot. He has a decent percentage when he lines up, completely set, for 3 with nobody in his face and hits a 3 that he's practiced many times before. Most of those shots come from the defense backing off and being caught off guard by him. A hurried jump shot to win? I won't believe that Stutz has more than half the chance of making it that Rags or Toure has.

That said, Rags missed his last three shots down the stretch in that awful 7 minute vacation we took on offense, so he had the chance to win the game and didn't. By no means am I saying that we lost because Rags didn't get it enough. I'm just wondering if and why Rags wouldn't be our primary option for a buzzer beater

[shockmonster]

The same shot Stutz took is fine with me. Stutz is a decent shooter, but I have no doubt that Rags has a better shot at making a quick turn around fadeaway than he does. I would think that Stutz has about a 25% chance of making that shot and Rags has a 50% chance.

Hell, I'd rather have Rags shoot a 3 for the win in that situation than Stutz taking a shot that he clearly isn't comfortable taking. At 4-4 Rags was clearly hot from 3, and even on a normal night, I think he has a better shot at making a contested 3 than Stutz has at making a contested jump shot.

I don't think that Stutz is the kind of player that can make that kind of shot. He has a decent percentage when he lines up, completely set, for 3 with nobody in his face and hits a 3 that he's practiced many times before. Most of those shots come from the defense backing off and being caught off guard by him. A hurried jump shot to win? I won't believe that Stutz has more than half the chance of making it that Rags or Toure has.

Stutz wasn't the first option. He was probably third or fourth option. Joe wasn't open. They made sure of that.