Offical NCAA Tournament thread

[brewcity77]

So what you're saying is that Gonzaga couldn't win a single factor against an 11-seed. And that's supposed to be the greatest team ever?

(Love, Teal-less in Carolina)

If they win tomorrow, yup. And more accurately, I would say they are so good they don't need to win a single factor to win a game

[jesmu84]

UCLA made an ungodly amount of mid-range jumpers - especially compared to the current college game of 3s and drives.

Re: suggs' block - I always thought if your hand is on the ball and a defender hits your hand, it's considered "part of the ball". True? IMO, I thought suggs absolutely hit his hand

Re: end of game reffing - I hate comments like "let them play" or "don't let refs decide the outcome". If it's a foul in the first 10 seconds, it's a foul in the last 10. Don't want refs involved in end of game situations? Then don't commit a foul or infraction that requires their involvement

[shoothoops]

That was my thought too. However, a coach friend mentioned how quickly GU inbounded the ball. UCLA didn’t have a chance to get into position.

General transition defense getting back, throughout the game, is a different type of defense as 94 feet with 3.3 seconds.

[MU82]

Re: suggs' block - I always thought if your hand is on the ball and a defender hits your hand, it's considered "part of the ball". True? IMO, I thought suggs absolutely hit his hand

Re: end of game reffing - I hate comments like "let them play" or "don't let refs decide the outcome". If it's a foul in the first 10 seconds, it's a foul in the last 10. Don't want refs involved in end of game situations? Then don't commit a foul or infraction that requires their involvement

I never like the "let them play" argument. And even worse, "Don't affect the game." I mean, if you are a ref and you are ignoring a foul, aren't you affecting the game?

That being said, IMHO that was a charge and it was correctly (and courageously) called as such.

As for the block and "hand part of the ball," here is the rule:

Rule 4-24-2. "It is legal use of hands to reach or block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it, and accidentally hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball."

In other words, it is not a foul.

Here is a good, 1-minute video further explaining. It's talking specifically about an NBA situation, but the rule is the same for high school and college:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX1UIaMVMkU

On some angles, it appears that Suggs got enough of Riley's arm to make it more than just "hand is part of the ball." On other angles, it appears to be all ball. And on still other angles, it appears Suggs got Riley's hand. And again, on fouls, refs aren't watching 20 slo-mo replays; they have one second to make a real-time call.

I frankly would have been OK with the call either way ... and given the spectacular-ness of the play, I'm glad it wasn't called.

[forgetful]

UCLA made an ungodly amount of mid-range jumpers - especially compared to the current college game of 3s and drives.

Re: suggs' block - I always thought if your hand is on the ball and a defender hits your hand, it's considered "part of the ball". True? IMO, I thought suggs absolutely hit his hand

Re: end of game reffing - I hate comments like "let them play" or "don't let refs decide the outcome". If it's a foul in the first 10 seconds, it's a foul in the last 10. Don't want refs involved in end of game situations? Then don't commit a foul or infraction that requires their involvement

Regarding the block, I thought it was a fine no call. Of more concern was the fact that Suggs also grabbed and pulled on the net.

Shouldn't that be a goal-tending then?

[GooooMarquette]

I never like the "let them play" argument. And even worse, "Don't affect the game." I mean, if you are a ref and you are ignoring a foul, aren't you affecting the game?

That being said, IMHO that was a charge and it was correctly (and courageously) called as such.

As for the block and "hand part of the ball," here is the rule:

Rule 4-24-2. "It is legal use of hands to reach or block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it, and accidentally hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball."

In other words, it is not a foul.

Here is a good, 1-minute video further explaining. It's talking specifically about an NBA situation, but the rule is the same for high school and college:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX1UIaMVMkU

On some angles, it appears that Suggs got enough of Riley's arm to make it more than just "hand is part of the ball." On other angles, it appears to be all ball. And on still other angles, it appears Suggs got Riley's hand. And again, on fouls, refs aren't watching 20 slo-mo replays; they have one second to make a real-time call.

I frankly would have been OK with the call either way ... and given the spectacular-ness of the play, I'm glad it wasn't called.

I agree with much of what you said, but with regard to the underlined: if the contact with the arm could be seen on one camera angle, that simply means the other camera angles missed it. A camera angle can’t make contact appear if it didn’t happen.

But yeah, it was a very quick and close play, and I am not going to tear the refs apart for missing it in the heat of the moment. The most unfortunate thing to me was that both close calls in the last minute happened to go Gonzaga‘s way.

[shoothoops]

Not sure if it has been mentioned yey, but one question was whether or not Suggs was in bounds after thr block to possess the ball and take it the other way.

The block appeared clean to me, and he appeared to barely get one foot back in bounds to possess the ball to go the other way. If the rule was two feet in bounds vs one he would have been ruled out of bounds, UCLA ball there.

The Timme charge on Juzang would have been more of a discussion had the shot gone in the basket, as to whether a charge or no call there. Calling a charge or not but gathering the ball defensively off of the miss, worked out either way for Gonzaga.

[wildbillsb]

Tired of hearing about great shots and totally ignoring Lees pass to Whitehead and Jerome tossing it in the semi final in77. We always heat about Laetners shot and shots like this but no recognition of Whiteheads, except maybe on Scoop. Chalk it up to recency bias.

Thought the same thing.  Only Butch Lee could have found Jerome in that situation.  And he did.  What a finish!

[MU82]

Regarding the block, I thought it was a fine no call. Of more concern was the fact that Suggs also grabbed and pulled on the net.

Shouldn't that be a goal-tending then?

It was incidental and it didn't affect the play. The ball wasn't going in. Had he put his hand up through the net and/or over the rim to block the shot, it would have been goaltending.

Not sure if it has been mentioned yey, but one question was whether or not Suggs was in bounds after thr block to possess the ball and take it the other way.

The block appeared clean to me, and he appeared to barely get one foot back in bounds to possess the ball to go the other way.

Doesn't have to be 2 feet. The rule is only that the player has to be "clearly inbounds." It is a judgment call. I just watched the play for the zillion-and-10th time ... and I absolutely would have ruled that Suggs was "clearly inbounds." He makes the block, his momentum carries him out of bounds, he comes back inbounds with his left foot and takes a full stride toward the ball, he touches the ball at about the same time as his right foot touches down. It would be my judgment that even if his right foot had touched a nanosecond after Suggs had touched the ball, he would have established himself "clearly inbounds."

One other thing I was reminded of as I re-watched the sequence:

Not long before the block, Suggs doubled-down on Riley and left Juzang open for 3; Juzang hit, putting UCLA ahead 77-75, and Grant Hill said: "Mental error right there by Jalen Suggs." But on the very next possession, Suggs weaved through the lane and hit a tough fade-away to tie, with Raftery gleefully saying: "This kid's a gamer!" Then came the block, the gather and the half-court bounce pass to Timme. Wow, what a sequence.

[shoothoops]

It was incidental and it didn't affect the play. The ball wasn't going in. Had he put his hand up through the net and/or over the rim to block the shot, it would have been goaltending.

Doesn't have to be 2 feet. The rule is only that the player has to be "clearly inbounds." It is a judgment call. I just watched the play for the zillion-and-10th time ... and I absolutely would have ruled that Suggs was "clearly inbounds." He makes the block, his momentum carries him out of bounds, he comes back inbounds with his left foot and takes a full stride toward the ball, he touches the ball at about the same time as his right foot touches down. It would be my judgment that even if his right foot had touched a nanosecond after Suggs had touched the ball, he would have established himself "clearly inbounds."

One other thing I was reminded of as I re-watched the sequence:

Not long before the block, Suggs doubled-down on Riley and left Juzang open for 3; Juzang hit, putting UCLA ahead 77-75, and Grant Hill said: "Mental error right there by Jalen Suggs." But on the very next possession, Suggs weaved through the lane and hit a tough fade-away to tie, with Raftery gleefully saying: "This kid's a gamer!" Then came the block, the gather and the half-court bounce pass to Timme. Wow, what a sequence.

Right. That’s why I said he was in bounds, but if the rule were two feet, that right foot hadn’t touched yet. It’s a game of inches sometimes.

[vogue65]

Raftery bothers me to no end.
Please retire, there comes a time.
I did, it's great.

[warriorchick]

Raftery bothers me to no end.
Please retire, there comes a time.
I did, it's great.

Are you kidding?  It's a highly-paid part-time job that he really loves.

It's everyone's ideal situation once they hit a certain age.

[JWags85]

Raftery bothers me to no end.
Please retire, there comes a time.
I did, it's great.

I can confidently say you are in a minute minority with that opinion.  He’s remarkably beloved and enjoyed, even still, by younger guys I know who were born a decade after he even started broadcasting, through people who were old enough to remember him coaching SHU.  He’s still sharp and picks his moments, he’s not a mess like Vitale or a curmudgeon like Billy Packer when he hung it up.

And why would he want to? There are jobs and then there are fun passions that let you enjoy and talk about the game you love

[MU82]

Raf is A-OK. He has a few catchphrases that he beats to death, often when egged on by his broadcast partner. And Raf makes references to things that happened back when the peach baskets were up that are totally irrelevant today. But he also has a lot of knowledge and a relaxed, everyman's way of relaying his insight. And he rarely talks over his partner or tries to hog the mic, which is a rarity these days. I'd take him over most others. Steve Kerr and Glenn Rivers were the gold standards for me, and in college I like Spanarkel a lot.

My main problem - and it probably isn't him - is that I noticed numerous games this season in which he was barely audible. I don't know if the mic was on too low, he was sitting too far away, he was talking too quietly, etc. It was better last night than it was the previous round IMHO.

[NickelDimer]

Raftery bothers me to no end.
Please retire, there comes a time.
I did, it's great.

Oh so you’re the one? Seriously while everyone is entitled to their opinion I think you’re out of your mind. He’s one of the greatest color guys ever. It’s actually a shame Grant Hill takes air time from him.

[MuggsyB]

Oh so you’re the one? Seriously while everyone is entitled to their opinion I think you’re out of your mind. He’s one of the greatest color guys ever. It’s actually a shame Grant Hill takes air time from him.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me what Grant Hill brings to the broadcast.

[Billy Hoyle]

I'm waiting for someone to tell me what Grant Hill brings to the broadcast.

An opportunity to talk about the pass to Laettner

[Herman Cain]

I'm waiting for someone to tell me what Grant Hill brings to the broadcast.

His voice kind of sounds like Dickie Simpkins. So if one is a Dickie Simpkins fan, then they should like 
Grant Hill . Other than that I am not sure.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm waiting for someone to tell me what Grant Hill brings to the broadcast.

Nada.

[Billy Hoyle]

Interesting:  https://twitter.com/marchmadness/status/1378799537368801285

GU would also be the first non football school to win a title since 1977.

[brewcity77]

His voice kind of sounds like Dickie Simpkins. So if one is a Dickie Simpkins fan, then they should like 
Grant Hill . Other than that I am not sure.

[WhiteTrash]

Interesting:  https://twitter.com/marchmadness/status/1378799537368801285

GU would also be the first non football school to win a title since 1977.

Nova is a football school?

[StillAWarrior]

Nova is a football school?

If they're defining "football school" as "has a football team" then yes, Nova is a football school.

And it seems that must be how they're defining it.

[StillAWarrior]

I thought the reports that Jalen Suggs and Paige Bueckers have been friends since elementary schools were cool. For those who haven't paid any attention to WBB, Bueckers is a freshman at UCONN and was just named named NPOY. Both made the FF. It turned out to be a pretty good freshman year for the two long-time friends. Both are AA (Buecker's first team; Suggs second); both were First Team All-Conference; both were Frosh/Newcomer of the year in their respective conferences. Suggs made it a little farther in the tournament than Bueckers, but she'll she'll probably win 2-3 championships before she's done. I guess Suggs will have to make due with his NBA millions after this year.

[MU82]

I thought the reports that Jalen Suggs and Paige Bueckers have been friends since elementary schools were cool. For those who haven't paid any attention to WBB, Bueckers is a freshman at UCONN and was just named named NPOY. Both made the FF. It turned out to be a pretty good freshman year for the two long-time friends. Both are AA (Buecker's first team; Suggs second); both were First Team All-Conference; both were Frosh/Newcomer of the year in their respective conferences. Suggs made it a little farther in the tournament than Bueckers, but she'll she'll probably win 2-3 championships before she's done. I guess Suggs will have to make due with his NBA millions after this year.

There have been some reports that Bueckers might challenge rules forbidding younger players from playing in the WNBA, if not this year then maybe next. Under the current WNBA collective bargaining agreement, American players have to be 22 before they can declare for the draft, or have earned their degree, or have been out of high school for four years. International players only have to be 20.

“Why would women have a choice? Half the battle is having the choice to do it then you go on and make the best decision,” Diana Taurasi told the Arizona Republic. “The next step is to have that option. Will kids do it? Probably not, but you should have that option. If you’re the best at your profession, you should be able to keep getting better.”

Obviously. But it was negotiated in the CBA, so it's questionable if a court challenge would succeed.