What was the technical for?

[SubGod22]

The foul count could be because CU fouled more. We played a lot of zone and they took a lot of outsied shots. We tried to take the ball inside more. In cases like that it's usually pretty obvious who's going to get called for more fouls.

[Smooth007]

I felt like the ref's really lost control of the game. In addition, this was directly related to the T given and subsequent events. If punches had been thrown during the "scuffle" .... I know who I would have blamed.... There were definately some negative vibes in Koch arena in the second half.

[Snapshot9]

The T influenced the game a great deal. It changed the whole psychology of the moment and directly afterwards, but the coach was hot after that, and he was doing a great deal of 'barking' at the refs after that.

In fact, I kind of felt some of the last 3 minute calls for us were, in fact, makeup calls to keep it a close game, when the T was the tide turner.
It is not unusual for a ref to try to 'even things out' if they know they made a bad call previously, it's called a conscience.

I have often wondered with exactly what a coach can 'get away with' in talking to a ref, and what they can't get away with. :roll:

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I went back and watched the game last night.

Yeah the T left me like WTF both times I seen it live and on Tv.

The thing that I noticed both times is that the dude went to the other side of the court and didnt explain himself to coach. Which is both smart and gay at the same time.

However Coach got him good when they broke up the fight and they recieved "warnings" The guy was kind of standing in the back and coach went out of his way to stare him down on his way back to the bench.

The officiating was not that good on either side. Yes Creighton was called for alot of fouls but Sub gave an excellent answer as to why that happened. They did miss a few travels and grabs on our side as well.

The scuffle with PJ and Millard is an excellent reason as to why im glad I dont play sports anymore. I am way to emotional, and I would have DDT that summbeach without thinking.
Cooz was clearly in possesion of the ball when Millard went after him. The whistle blew and he was bent over him. Okay fine whatever but then he DROPPED on top of him. Im actually angry that Cooz didnt joke that punk out. He was totally justified. The fact that a foul was not called on Millard is totally unacceptable.

[WSUwatcher]

Officiating

It's amusing to read all the comments about this or that call cost a team a game, or about how they'd have lost anyway, etc., etc., etc.

The plain fact is that it's almost impossible for officiating to be the only reason a team loses a game. Invariably, whoever loses, even if the teams are just moderately well matched in terms of talent, will have made enough mistakes of their own to overshadow by far whatever calls may have gone against them. That's one of the main things those film reviews done by Marshall and other coaches are all about -- identifying such mistakes in hopes of teaching the players to make fewer of them. In the Creighton game, for example, several things come to mind just from the time the game was tied at 63: the missed shot the Shocks didn't rebound that led to the tiebreaking free throws, the turnover that led to the easy basket, the poorly executed final possession. And that quick list doesn't even count their eight missed free throws during the game or anything else WSU did wrong the first 39 minutes.

Having said that, though, it's obviously possible for the officiating to be an important factor in the outcome of a close game, which is why it's so silly to blow it off the way the Troll Formerly Known as KCShox did, by saying about the T that was and the T that wasn't that the Shocks would have lost anyway, so move on. Well, of course the outcome isn't going to be reversed by talking about it, so in that sense moving on is all one can do.

But when you have a three-point game in which the losing team had a legitimate final shot to tie it at the buzzer, the combination of the free throws Creighton got for the phantom T against Marshall and the ones WSU didn't get for Stinnett's soccer exhibition is obviously a factor. Granted, you can make the case that the officiating as a whole, even including those two incidents, balanced out; I'll leave that for others to decide. But if you believe that the officiating other than those two miscues balanced out, then those two calls / no calls unquestionably disadvantaged the Shocks in what was otherwise a very close game. They didn't by themselves beat WSU, but they did put WSU at a meaningful disadvantage.

[SubGod22]

Re: Officiating

It's amusing to read all the comments about this or that call cost a team a game, or about how they'd have lost anyway, etc., etc., etc.

The plain fact is that it's almost impossible for officiating to be the only reason a team loses a game. Invariably, whoever loses, even if the teams are just moderately well matched in terms of talent, will have made enough mistakes of their own to overshadow by far whatever calls may have gone against them. That's one of the main things those film reviews done by Marshall and other coaches are all about -- identifying such mistakes in hopes of teaching the players to make fewer of them. In the Creighton game, for example, several things come to mind just from the time the game was tied at 63: the missed shot the Shocks didn't rebound that led to the tiebreaking free throws, the turnover that led to the easy basket, the poorly executed final possession. And that quick list doesn't even count their eight missed free throws during the game or anything else WSU did wrong the first 39 minutes.

Having said that, though, it's obviously possible for the officiating to be an important factor in the outcome of a close game, which is why it's so silly to blow it off the way the Troll Formerly Known as KCShox did, by saying about the T that was and the T that wasn't that the Shocks would have lost anyway, so move on. Well, of course the outcome isn't going to be reversed by talking about it, so in that sense moving on is all one can do.

But when you have a three-point game in which the losing team had a legitimate final shot to tie it at the buzzer, the combination of the free throws Creighton got for the phantom T against Marshall and the ones WSU didn't get for Stinnett's soccer exhibition is obviously a factor. Granted, you can make the case that the officiating as a whole, even including those two incidents, balanced out; I'll leave that for others to decide. But if you believe that the officiating other than those two miscues balanced out, then those two calls / no calls unquestionably disadvantaged the Shocks in what was otherwise a very close game. They didn't by themselves beat WSU, but they did put WSU at a meaningful disadvantage.

Well put