PonyFans.com

EastStang wrote:While the play is not video reviewable, why didn't the other two refs decide to overrule him or better yet, check the video to ensure the time on the clock was right and oh wait, did I just see that wasn't a goal tend. I think you can change a ruling if you are checking a reviewable item. Refs just didn't want to show up their guy. I hope he doesn't work another tournament game ever.

That's what I have been saying. The other two refs pussied out. Refs get together all the time and change
calls. They had plenty of time to over rule it. Total wussies they are.

PonyKris89 wrote:

EastStang wrote:While the play is not video reviewable, why didn't the other two refs decide to overrule him or better yet, check the video to ensure the time on the clock was right and oh wait, did I just see that wasn't a goal tend. I think you can change a ruling if you are checking a reviewable item. Refs just didn't want to show up their guy. I hope he doesn't work another tournament game ever.

That's what I have been saying. The other two refs pussied out. Refs get together all the time and change
calls. They had plenty of time to over rule it. Total wussies they are.

I think the problem was he blew his whistle and emphatically signaled to count the basket. If he had just blown the whistle they could have conferred briefly. If that had happened I think they would have said inadvertent whistle and ball would have belonged to whoever had the possession arrow.

That is just another excuse they might use Grant.
Those guys can change any call before play starts up again. Happens all the time.
Neither of these refs should be allowed any more tourney time, they should have slapped the guy on the head
and overruled him.

PonyKris89 wrote:That is just another excuse they might use Grant.
Those guys can change any call before play starts up again. Happens all the time.
Neither of these refs should be allowed any more tourney time, they should have slapped the guy on the head
and overruled him.

I agree. I should have said "would have" instead of "could have". They could have changed it no matter whether he signaled it or not.

So if that happens who gets the ball? Possession arrow? Pretty hard to put that one back together.

What they should do is ... a hand signal from the ref but no whistle, like in hockey, play continues until a change of possession, a score, a foul, or dead ball. Then the play is reviewed. In other words let that play, play out. The score and clock can then be adjusted accordingly without prejudice to either team based on whether or not the goal tend is subsequently upheld or reversed.

BruinPops wrote:What they should do is ... a hand signal from the ref but no whistle, like in hockey, play continues until a change of possession, a score, a foul, or dead ball. Then the play is reviewed. In other words let that play, play out. The score and clock can then be adjusted accordingly without prejudice to either team based on whether or not the goal tend is subsequently upheld or reversed.

Or call the foul on Looney. Take your pick

CalallenStang wrote:

BruinPops wrote:What they should do is ... a hand signal from the ref but no whistle, like in hockey, play continues until a change of possession, a score, a foul, or dead ball. Then the play is reviewed. In other words let that play, play out. The score and clock can then be adjusted accordingly without prejudice to either team based on whether or not the goal tend is subsequently upheld or reversed.

Or call the foul on Looney. Take your pick

Or the missed hack on Powell a few plays earlier. I don't think personal fouls called or not called will ever be subject to review.

Go away

Your little white kid pushed off all game and talked [deleted] the whole time and was never called

Awful, now way he should've called it from that angle

UCLA tradition wins because of chicken sh*t other 2 refs

On that video clip - watch the UCLA giving the screen for the shot - just keeps moving into Nic. All year long our refs call people when they are leaning into someone on a screen. That guy was skipping into position.

ponyswim wrote:On that video clip - watch the UCLA giving the screen for the shot - just keeps moving into Nic. All year long our refs call people when they are leaning into someone on a screen. That guy was skipping into position.

They weren't set on 90% of their screens. Watch the baseline runs that alford made and they would slide their hips and knees out every time, and occasionally throw an elbow in to boot.

docabel wrote:

ponyswim wrote:On that video clip - watch the UCLA giving the screen for the shot - just keeps moving into Nic. All year long our refs call people when they are leaning into someone on a screen. That guy was skipping into position.

They weren't set on 90% of their screens. Watch the baseline runs that alford made and they would slide their hips and knees out every time, and occasionally throw an elbow in to boot.

90%? More like 99%.

docabel wrote:

ponyswim wrote:On that video clip - watch the UCLA giving the screen for the shot - just keeps moving into Nic. All year long our refs call people when they are leaning into someone on a screen. That guy was skipping into position.

They weren't set on 90% of their screens. Watch the baseline runs that alford made and they would slide their hips and knees out every time, and occasionally throw an elbow in to boot.

Aren't those west coast prison rules?