I was under the impression that a player who cannot shoot FTs due to an injury could not re-enter the game unrtil his team got possession again.
Obviously I was wrong, but I thought that time had to come off the clock before they could re-enter. Although I think that's actually NFL rule that I for some reason thought was a basketball rule.
I believe the announcers during the broadcast echoed the same...
that the player could not immediately come back in.
He didn't re-enter until a change of possession anyway, as they got the ball back with Hayward's failed inbounds pass.
I was disgusted by this and believe this was a fake job and an absolute disgrace to sportsmanlike competition. Classless to the highest degree. Sickening.
It is a rule that you cannot come back unless time comes off the clock.
seriously guys? spend some time complaining about things that actually lost us the game. if we were up 1 or 2 at the point maybe it is an issue. it was a time game and they took out a 76 percent free shooter shooter for a 68 percent. give it up.
Bingo. No player is going to fake an injury there.
Quote from: mubball2009 on March 22, 2009, 07:25:46 PM
seriously guys? spend some time complaining about things that actually lost us the game. if we were up 1 or 2 at the point maybe it is an issue. it was a time game and they took out a 76 percent free shooter shooter for a 68 percent. give it up.
I was watching the game at a sports bar without sound. At the time I thought we were getting ripped off until I read that the sub had a lower FT shooting percentage than the player that left the game.
Quote from: mu77vegas on March 22, 2009, 07:31:34 PM
I was watching the game at a sports bar without sound. At the time I thought we were getting ripped off until I read that the sub had a lower FT shooting percentage than the player that left the game.
And choosing him was the COACH's call, right?
The AP report makes it seem like it was Tiller's call.
Hey sorry, but WHO THE EFF SHOT THE EFFIN FREE THROWS? WHO?
Kimmie English, who was LIGHTS OUT and FEELING IT.
I RARELY see players injured where another guy comes in to shoot. I NEVER see it when the score is tied and it's for the purpose of putting in your red-hot shooter. And I NEVER see the 'injured guy' come back in after exactly 0 seconds have elapsed off the clock.
Yeah, there's plenty of reasons you can point to why we lost this game, but I know Missouri did this intentionally and it's an absolute disgrace.
The rule should be altered. A guy shouldn't be able to go back in for 60 seconds of clock.
I mean, if you're hurt, yet 60 seconds would somehow heal you, well, you sure as hell can shoot FTs. Hell, the refs will absolutely give a hurt player 60 seconds to be assessed, shake it off, etc.
I'm not complaining about what happened. We still never scored a point, regardless of them hitting their FTs.
Same reason I don't blame Lazar. Acker's last 3 attempt was terrible, and it probably would have been just as terrible had he had 1.5 more seconds.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 22, 2009, 07:47:37 PM
The rule should be altered. A guy shouldn't be able to go back in for 60 seconds of clock.
I mean, if you're hurt, yet 60 seconds would somehow heal you, well, you sure as hell can shoot FTs. Hell, the refs will absolutely Acker's last 3 attempt was terrible, and it probably would have been just as terrible had he had 1.5 more seconds.
Why does this matter? Suppose he made the shot, we lose by 1 instead of 4. Does that make you feel better?
Wait, we would have covered. Is that why you care?
My point is that Tiller came back in the game before MU inbounded the ball. He is NOT allowed to do that. What's to stop a team from telling a bad free-throw shooter to fake an injury, then re-enter the game after the attempts? And even if English was statistically worse than Tiller, Tiller was exhaused and English was fresh. We did NOT lose the game on this call; we lost the game because we allowed nine points in the last 1:58. But you'd think NCAA Tournament officials would know the effing rules.
Quote from: mu77vegas on March 22, 2009, 07:31:34 PM
I was watching the game at a sports bar without sound. At the time I thought we were getting ripped off until I read that the sub had a lower FT shooting percentage than the player that left the game.
I'd take my chances with the 75% shooter that just got hacked and shaken up on the play compared to the 68% shooter that had been hitting everything all night.
Quote from: ecompt on March 22, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
My point is that Tiller came back in the game before MU inbounded the ball. He is NOT allowed to do that. What's to stop a team from telling a bad free-throw shooter to fake an injury, then re-enter the game after the attempts? And even if English was statistically worse than Tiller, Tiller was exhaused and English was fresh. We did NOT lose the game on this call; we lost the game because we allowed nine points in the last 1:58. But you'd think NCAA Tournament officials would know the effing rules.
I agree with this. But my point is this: Missouri exploited this rule by faking an injury and it's absolutely disgraceful.
That is what happened. They faked an injury. Maybe they were upset with DJ's return the day of this game and thought it was appropriate, but in my book, it's sickening.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 07:44:18 PM
Hey sorry, but WHO THE EFF SHOT THE EFFIN FREE THROWS? WHO?
Kimmie English, who was LIGHTS OUT and FEELING IT.
I RARELY see players injured where another guy comes in to shoot. I NEVER see it when the score is tied and it's for the purpose of putting in your red-hot shooter. And I NEVER see the 'injured guy' come back in after exactly 0 seconds have elapsed off the clock.
Yeah, there's plenty of reasons you can point to why we lost this game, but I know Missouri did this intentionally and it's an absolute disgrace.
+1
That BS rule needs to be changed. If a guy is too hurt to shoot, let the OPPOSING coach choose the shooter from someone who is already on the floor..
jay bee, you sir, are a joke.
I would have taken an 80 percent shooter off his ass on the bench rather than a guy who shoots well and is in the flow of the game. if anything that switch put more pressure on a worse shooter. besides. he makes 1 and its game over.
you are stretching.
he was lights out in the first half, which was about an hour before. I would have taken an 80 percent shooter off the bench, no blood flowing, off his ass.
BTW, I think "Kim" English scored 15 points off the bench in the first half. His career high was 16. He had zero points in the second half until Missouri faked an injury to get him and his hot hand on the line. He finished with 17... 16 and 17 which #1 gave him his career high, #2 were his only points of the second half, and #3 were ill-gotten by Missouri's Tiller and their coaching staff being disgraceful, unsportsmanlike scumbags.
I'm shocked this isn't an issue to more folks.
you're right, 2009, let's take one of the basic rules of basketball and disregard it in the final minute of a tied game. It wasn't that he faked the injury; it's that the rulebook states he is NOT allowed to play again until his team regains possession of the ball.
stay classy guys. not only is it usually the official fault, but now it is the rule books fault.
Quote from: ecompt on March 22, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
My point is that Tiller came back in the game before MU inbounded the ball. He is NOT allowed to do that. What's to stop a team from telling a bad free-throw shooter to fake an injury, then re-enter the game after the attempts? And even if English was statistically worse than Tiller, Tiller was exhaused and English was fresh. We did NOT lose the game on this call; we lost the game because we allowed nine points in the last 1:58. But you'd think NCAA Tournament officials would know the effing rules.
I believe the player that is injured is allowed to come in after a stoppage. A timeout was called after the free throws, allowing him back in.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 22, 2009, 07:51:03 PM
Why does this matter? Suppose he made the shot, we lose by 1 instead of 4. Does that make you feel better?
Wait, we would have covered. Is that why you care?
Uh, no. It didn't matter. The shot was terrible, was it not? I wrote it because .. it's not like losing was Lazar's fault. Chances are, even if he didn't step over the line, we may still have had trouble with their press, getting it up court, and taking a decent shot with the luxury of 1.5 extra seconds.
And actually .. Missouri should have just let Acker go on that last play, just as we did on Friday .. we were up by 4, and you should just let the team shoot, stay away from them without fouling. Imagine Acker did sink that shot, and they called a foul. Suddenly a 4 point play ties the game, and everyone would have called for the coach's head.
Quote from: bma725 on March 22, 2009, 08:05:56 PM
I believe the player that is injured is allowed to come in after a stoppage. A timeout was called after the free throws, allowing him back in.
Yes...exactly. Buzz ran right over after *he* called TO, but the player was allowed to come back in at that point.
And no one has any evidence he faked an injury. That was hard contact between him and McNeal.
Section 2. Who Attempts
Art. 1. Personal fouls—The free throw(s) awarded because of a personal
foul shall be attempted by the offended player, unless one of the conditions
of Article 2 of this section is met.
Art. 2. Under the following conditions, the free throw(s) that were to
be attempted by the offended player shall be attempted by that player's
substitute unless no substitute is available, in which case any teammate shall
attempt the free throw(s):
a. When the offended player must withdraw because of injury, he or she
is bleeding or has blood on his or her uniform or person;
b. (Women) lost, displaced or irritated contact; or
c. When the offended player is disqualified.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 07:57:58 PM
BTW, I think "Kim" English scored 15 points off the bench in the first half. His career high was 16. He had zero points in the second half until Missouri faked an injury to get him and his hot hand on the line. He finished with 17... 16 and 17 which #1 gave him his career high, #2 were his only points of the second half, and #3 were ill-gotten by Missouri's Tiller and their coaching staff being disgraceful, unsportsmanlike scumbags.
I'm shocked this isn't an issue to more folks.
Tiller reinjured his wrist on that play. He could only play on D. If there had been an OT we would have had to continually sub offense for defense because he couldn't bend his wrist. Why would you fake an injury for your team's most clutch performer and insert a freshman who is a 68 percent FT shooter?
mizzousteve,
The thing that bothered me most about the play was how quickly Tiller ran to the scorers table to get back in the game - almost immediately after the free throws were made. That demonstrates to me that Missouri took him out on purpose to have English take the free throws. If you can play defense, you can shoot free throws. Not a very sportsmanlike move by Missouri if you ask me.
Tiller is a crappy shooter - he's about 12% from three point range. I don't know the emotional makeup of him vs. English, but clearly Missouri preferred to have English, who was undoubtedly 'feeling it', at the line vs. Tiller. So they used the (bad?) rules to their advantage.
It was a gutless, wuss move and I am sickened by the prospect of having to share the court again with such a disgraceful organization.
wow, really? show some class. maybe we shouldn't have played matador defense and fouled a dude in a tie game with 5 seconds left.
u think any bball player would pass that shot up. and to reiterate the obvious, tiller was a better free throw shooter and isn't a freshman. with a 4 pt lead with 100 seconds left, all we had to do was get 1 stop or 1 bucket to win. we couldn't do either.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
Tiller is a crappy shooter - he's about 12% from three point range. I don't know the emotional makeup of him vs. English, but clearly Missouri preferred to have English, who was undoubtedly 'feeling it', at the line vs. Tiller. So they used the (bad?) rules to their advantage.
It was a gutless, wuss move and I am sickened by the prospect of having to share the court again with such a disgraceful organization.
Tiller wasn't going to be shooting a Free Three Point shot, he was going to be shooting a Free Throw. You take out a 75 percent guy to put in Kimmie who shoots FTs at a 68 percent clip. Tiller was 4 of 6 at the line today while English hadn't attempted a free throw and was cold sitting on the bench. Ask any Mizzou fan who you had rather have at the free throw line an uninjured JT Tiller or Kimmie English and all of them are going to say Tiller. Truthfully I am absolutely floored that this is an issue and beyond that I am even more stunned yet (if that is possible) that people are calling our players and our coach gutless.
Quote from: mubball2009 on March 22, 2009, 10:23:55 PM
wow, really? show some class. maybe we shouldn't have played matador defense and fouled a dude in a tie game with 5 seconds left.
Show some class? Coming from you? Get real. It's OK, I was a young boy once too. I am simply calling Missouri on what they did. I'm not commenting on the rest of the game and what we should or should not have done to 'dudes'.
It seems you're trying to rationalize the argument that Missouri wanted Tiller to shoot based on his season FT % and being a junior - this is an extremely shortsighted analysis and completely wrong. They wanted Kim English on the line, so they used a bad rule to their advantage.
Quote from: mizzousteve on March 22, 2009, 10:27:39 PM
Tiller wasn't going to be shooting a Free Three Point shot, he was going to be shooting a Free Throw. You take out a 75 percent guy to put in Kimmie who shoots FTs at a 68 percent clip. Tiller was 4 of 6 at the line today while English hadn't attempted a free throw and was cold sitting on the bench. Ask any Mizzou fan who you had rather have at the free throw line an uninjured JT Tiller or Kimmie English and all of them are going to say Tiller. Truthfully I am absolutely floored that this is an issue and beyond that I am even more stunned yet (if that is possible) that people are calling our players and our coach gutless.
What was Tiller's injury?
Jay Bee... you need to chill out dude.
Who are you to question Tiller's sportsmanship? The kid is the heart and soul of Mizzou. There isn't a human on earth that would be less likely to fake an injury than JT Tiller. He is the most clutch FT shooter on Mizzou and neither me nor Mike Anderson would rather have anyone else shooting FTs at the end of the game then him.
Try watching more than one Mizzou game all year before you start making sweeping judgments that couldn't be more false. Mike Anderson is as classy and upstanding a coach as there is in college bball and he doesn't stand for anything else (see last season when he suspended 5 mizzou scholarship players for a key Big 12 game (and Tiller was one of 6 scholarship players who wasn't suspended, because he is fantastic kid) after they were involved in a bar fight.) I understand the loss was a tough one to swallow, and props to your team for playing hard the whole way and giving us a great game, but you need to cut the unprovoked insults.
and Tiller hurt his wrist BTW. He couldn't bend it, and thus couldn't shoot. You don't need your wrist to play defense, so after there was a time out, he subbed back in legally to play defense. He was seen icing his swollen wrist as he was getting on the plane back to Missouri.
Quote from: MizzouAstro on March 22, 2009, 10:31:35 PM
Jay Bee... you need to chill out dude.
Who are you to question Tiller's sportsmanship? The kid is the heart and soul of Mizzou. There isn't a human on earth that would be less likely to fake an injury than JT Tiller. He is the most clutch FT shooter on Mizzou and neither me nor Mike Anderson would rather have anyone else shooting FTs at the end of the game then him.
Try watching more than one Mizzou game all year before you start making sweeping judgments that couldn't be more false. Mike Anderson is as classy and upstanding a coach as there is in college bball and he doesn't stand for anything else (see last season when he suspended 5 mizzou scholarship players for a key Big 12 game (and Tiller was one of 6 scholarship players who wasn't suspended, because he is fantastic kid) after they were involved in a bar fight.) I understand the loss was a tough one to swallow, and props to your team for playing hard the whole way and giving us a great game, but you need to cut the unprovoked insults.
Then why did he leave the game? For zero seconds? Your coach says, "once he came over and sat down, he is that kind of guy who wants to get back in there." Why did he come out in the first place?
Missouri is a very good team. They beat us. Good luck the rest of the way. But, I don't see 'heart and soul' players in the most important time of the game come out of the game, just to sit out for a few seconds (er.. zero seconds on the clock) and hop back in.
Then again, I didn't expect DJ to be back in action so maybe there were just multiple injury miracles working here.
Quote from: MizzouAstro on March 22, 2009, 10:33:34 PM
and Tiller hurt his wrist BTW. He couldn't bend it, and thus couldn't shoot. You don't need your wrist to play defense, so after there was a time out, he subbed back in legally to play defense. He was seen icing his swollen wrist as he was getting on the plane back to Missouri.
Like I said, to me, Missouri took advantage of a BAD RULE. If you're going to be on the court to play defense, then you shouldn't use some 'I'm hurt' exception to avoid shooting free throws. That's classless to me. If you're going to play the guy on D, then don't take him out when he gets fouled. That's gutless. Either play or don't.
Have you ever tried to shoot with a sprained/broken wrist? Its physically impossible. Why hurt your team by trying to shoot when you know you will miss? I guarantee you Anderson asked him what he wanted to do. He took himself out for the betterment of the team. Its called being a team player. Something you obviously don't understand.
Quote from: MizzouAstro on March 22, 2009, 10:38:02 PM
Have you ever tried to shoot with a sprained/broken wrist? Its physically impossible. Why hurt your team by trying to shoot when you know you will miss? I guarantee you Anderson asked him what he wanted to do. He took himself out for the betterment of the team. Its called being a team player. Something you obviously don't understand.
Yeah, great argument. "guys, I am only good on defense. ... so, if I get fouled, let's have the hot shooter step on the court with 5 seconds left and drill the shots. I'll get right back out there after, cause my defense is solid yo!"
you are a joke with this "gutless" crap. Whether or not the rule is good or bad is a different debate. The point is that it is a rule and I guarantee you if McNeal got hurt before FTs he would have gone out for someone who could have a better shot of making them. And in turn, he would have wanted to get back in the game as quickly as possible. "Taking advantage" of a rule that is on the books. Give me a break.
Mizzou,
You can't understand why this is an issue on this board? Imagine if the roles were reversed and Marquette did the same thing - you wouldn't be pissed?
Missouri took advantage of the rule. As an opposing fan, when the player that is supposedly too injured to shoot free throws immediately runs to the scorers table after the free throws are made to come back in the game, it leaves a sour taste in your mouth.
Why do you think the crowd was booing after Missouri did it?
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 10:37:33 PM
Like I said, to me, Missouri took advantage of a BAD RULE. If you're going to be on the court to play defense, then you shouldn't use some 'I'm hurt' exception to avoid shooting free throws. That's classless to me. If you're going to play the guy on D, then don't take him out when he gets fouled. That's gutless. Either play or don't.
Look I'm not a huge fan of the rule myself. I understand it if you too feel the same way but to call our guys gutless or classless is incredibly over the top.
jay bee, you are an elitist piece of garbage and I am embarassed you are on this board. you are convinced that mizzou was dying to have kim english on the line, yet they didn't even bother to have him in a tie game with 15 seconds left. what if dj went up strong and hurt his foot? I have can't believe how strongly you are against a basketball rule that everyone has played with for years. should the shot clock be down to 20 seconds too?
to reiterate. you=garbage. we blew a 4 point lead. get over it.
Sure it would leave a sour taste. As I said earlier, its tough way to lose. But what I'm reading is more like sour grapes then a sour taste. A rule is a rule is a rule. During a tough game like this one, you have to do what you have to do to when. If it was flipped, Marquette would have done the same thing, sure, it'd be tough to swallow.
Quote from: mizzousteve on March 22, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
Look I'm not a huge fan of the rule myself. I understand it if you too feel the same way but to call our guys gutless or classless is incredibly over the top.
Why did your heart and soul of the team player not shoot the free throws, but then go right back into the game, zero seconds later? Did the wrist heal up, or was it purely because Missouri felt his defense was beneficial but his free throw shooting was detrimental to the team? I am seeing you argue that he only left the floor because his shooting was bad, but came back on the court because the d was good.
If that is indeed what you are saying, in my book that is classless. Don't put in your hot shooter citing an injury when the reality is you're using a bad rule to help your team win.
Quote from: Norm on March 22, 2009, 10:40:39 PM
Mizzou,
You can't understand why this is an issue on this board? Imagine if the roles were reversed and Marquette did the same thing - you wouldn't be pissed?
Missouri took advantage of the rule. As an opposing fan, when the player that is supposedly too injured to shoot free throws immediately runs to the scorers table after the free throws are made to come back in the game, it leaves a sour taste in your mouth.
Why do you think the crowd was booing after Missouri did it?
I wouldn't have an issue if someone got injured. Furthermore, I certainly wouldn't be upset if the opposition actually helped my team by subbing in a frosh who is a poor FT shooter.
why is nobody mentioning that it was a tie game and they needed to make one? he makes 1, game over. he misses both, we go to overtime. marquette lowered their chance of winning by fouling, it didn't matter who shot the free throws. my grandma could hit 1 out of 2 free throws. I'm upset this is becoming the biggest story of the game.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 10:45:56 PM
Why did your heart and soul of the team player not shoot the free throws, but then go right back into the game, zero seconds later? Did the wrist heal up, or was it purely because Missouri felt his defense was beneficial but his free throw shooting was detrimental to the team? I am seeing you argue that he only left the floor because his shooting was bad, but came back on the court because the d was good.
If that is indeed what you are saying, in my book that is classless. Don't put in your hot shooter citing an injury when the reality is you're using a bad rule to help your team win.
You are saying the same things over and over. And it still isn't a valid argument. If doing what it takes within the rules to win a NCAA tourney game is "classless" then call Tom Izzo, Jim Boehiem, Jim Calhoun... any coach with a ring classless because they'd do the same thing.
All - here is my question:
Did the injury status change from just before the free throws to when Tiller checked back in?
If so, fine. If not, disgraceful.
mubball2009 are you going to change your name to 2010 next year, or is this it? Why are you calling me an 'elitist'? Because I pointed out that you're obviously a young kid?
your elitist because you call into question the character and coach of a team for no reason. if u were the coach and ur kid was hurt, would u ''take the high road'' and tell him to shoot? bullshit.
if not, then are you claiming that he was never actually hurt and that it was a strategic move to replace 76 percent with a 68 percent freshman.
you don't even know what u are saying. you are a little kid who knows he is mad, but not sure why. talk about the blown defense that lead to the foul.
mizzou,
English was having a great game, that's why he was picked. I'm sure there was a better percentage shooter on the bench that could have gone in, but English had the hot hand, why not go to him? Tiller had already missed two free throws during the game (4 for 6).
The rule needs to be changed to avoid these types of situations. If Tiller actually missed any game time, I doubt most here would even be upset.
your ''question'' means nothing. you don't need a wrist to play d, obviously. your question calls into question whether or not he was ever hurt, which means the coach strategically subbed out a 76 percent shooter for a cold on the bench 68 percent freshman. I don't know if u play basketball or not, but if you are indeed shooting the lights out, what happens if you don't shoot again for 90 minutes? is it magically always going to be there? no. hot shooters stay hot by shooting, not by scoring 0 in the 2nd half. at that point in the game he was a subpar shooting freshman.
Quote from: Norm on March 22, 2009, 10:59:38 PM
mizzou,
English was having a great game, that's why he was picked. I'm sure there was a better percentage shooter on the bench that could have gone in, but English had the hot hand, why not go to him? Tiller had already missed two free throws during the game (4 for 6).
The rule needs to be changed to avoid these types of situations. If Tiller actually missed any game time, I doubt most here would even be upset.
English being the hot hand was definitely the reason they picked him, though honestly, we're a pretty poor FT shooting team so the only player I can think of on the bench with a better percentage would be Miguel Paul, another freshman who had played 3 minutes all game and his percentage would only be marginally better if its better at all. I can see some cause to change the rule. It would be pretty cheap to sub Tiller out then call a TO, to get him back in. That wasn't the case this time as Buzz is the one who called the TO to set up the inbounds play. Since it was a wrist injury, Tiller was able to come back, because he doesn't need his wrist to play D. If we had been on offense, he wouldn't have come back in.
Quote from: Norm on March 22, 2009, 10:59:38 PM
mizzou,
English was having a great game, that's why he was picked. I'm sure there was a better percentage shooter on the bench that could have gone in, but English had the hot hand, why not go to him? Tiller had already missed two free throws during the game (4 for 6).
The rule needs to be changed to avoid these types of situations. If Tiller actually missed any game time, I doubt most here would even be upset.
That's fair. I don't dispute what you say about the rule. Perhaps the NBA rule which I believe allows the opposing coach to select the FT shooter would be a better solution.
Quote from: mubball2009 on March 22, 2009, 10:58:42 PM
your elitist because you call into question the character and coach of a team for no reason.
I do not own or possess an 'elitist'. You're obviously not a Marquette student or alum, but I appreciate the pseudo-support you provide.
Both to you and mizzousteve, 1) please answer my injury question - was there something [i.e. injury status] that changed in those few moments between the foul and Tiller checking back? 2) If not, would the following be acceptable: if DJ got fouled and we were worried about his FT shooting and/or had someone hot on the bench, and we said, 'hey,... he's got a bad foot. each time he gets fouled, there's contact that is making it worse, so we'll probably put in a pinch-ft shooter. DJ will just check right back in' Sound good?
that is not the nba rule. the opposing coach picks the shooter if the shooter gets tossed. if you take this rule out and make it the opposing coaches decision, than every game winning layup will turn into a headhunt
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 11:05:05 PM
I do not own or possess an 'elitist'. You're obviously not a Marquette student or alum, but I appreciate the pseudo-support you provide.
Both to you and mizzousteve, 1) please answer my injury question - was there something [i.e. injury status] that changed in those few moments between the foul and Tiller checking back? 2) If not, would the following be acceptable: if DJ got fouled and we were worried about his FT shooting and/or had someone hot on the bench, and we said, 'hey,... he's got a bad foot. each time he gets fouled, there's contact that is making it worse, so we'll probably put in a pinch-ft shooter. DJ will just check right back in' Sound good?
This isn't hard to figure out. The status change was the possession change. If we were on offense, he stays on the bench. We were on D, so he came in. To play D. Because you don't use your wrist for D. Thats the answer to your question. And its a fair, truthful, and honest answer.
jay bee, you r a fucking idiot. u just compared a 50 percent shooter to 76. use butler as an example, he shoots about the same. if butler had the bum foot, would buzz try and utilize that rule to the betterment if jimmy wasn't hurt? no, because he is a 76 percent free throw shooter. you are saying either or two things, the coach made the decision because he didn't trust a healthy triller (this means your an idiot) or you are saying that he was injured and should have been forced to shoot (in which case your an idiot)
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 11:05:05 PM
I do not own or possess an 'elitist'. You're obviously not a Marquette student or alum, but I appreciate the pseudo-support you provide.
Both to you and mizzousteve, 1) please answer my injury question - was there something [i.e. injury status] that changed in those few moments between the foul and Tiller checking back? 2) If not, would the following be acceptable: if DJ got fouled and we were worried about his FT shooting and/or had someone hot on the bench, and we said, 'hey,... he's got a bad foot. each time he gets fouled, there's contact that is making it worse, so we'll probably put in a pinch-ft shooter. DJ will just check right back in' Sound good?
1. Absolutely not. I think that is pretty clear. I doubt our training staff has a magical potion to make things better that quickly.
2. I think it would be hard to make the argument when you are talking about a nagging injury that wasn't obviously reaggravated on the previous play. As for the second part, I would have a problem if it happened multiple times. But of course that is not the situation that happened today.
talk about classless...I wouldn't be too pumped about a win that came from an injury. we fouled in a tie game with 5 seconds left. that is game over right there. ya, we would have had a better chance if he got injured and had to shoot. pretty classy way to win
Quote from: mizzousteve on March 22, 2009, 11:13:29 PM
1. Absolutely not. I think that is pretty clear. I doubt our training staff has a magical potion to make things better that quickly.
Fair enough - then this is where we disagree. You are OK with subbing in a hot shooter because a guy's wrist is bothering him. I am not. I am OK with subbing in someone from the bench if a guy CANNOT PLAY. I think* you're saying that the sub was solely for purposes of putting a someone on the line with a better chance to convert free throws. Not because an injured player couldn't play.
Classless.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 11:16:33 PM
Fair enough - then this is where we disagree. You are OK with subbing in a hot shooter because a guy's wrist is bothering him. I am not. I am OK with subbing in someone from the bench if a guy CANNOT PLAY. I think* you're saying that the sub was solely for purposes of putting a someone on the line with a better chance to convert free throws. Not because an injured player couldn't play.
Classless.
Clueless.
While it's hard to argue that this cost us the game....my curiosity took over.
Not sure exactly if I'm readying this properly, but to me this is telling me that the game clock needs to tick before a substitute can re-enter the game.
Art. 13. A player who has been withdrawn or replaced by a substitute may re-enter the game at the next opportunity to substitute, provided that the game clock has been properly started after the withdrawal or replacement.
Quote from: ultimate on March 22, 2009, 11:27:30 PM
While it's hard to argue that this cost us the game....my curiosity took over.
Not sure exactly if I'm readying this properly, but to me this is telling me that the game clock needs to tick before a substitute can re-enter the game.
Art. 13. A player who has been withdrawn or replaced by a substitute may re-enter the game at the next opportunity to substitute, provided that the game clock has been properly started after the withdrawal or replacement.
My understanding is that either the clock must start and stop on a dead ball, or some other appropriate subbing time must come along, such as the TO Buzz took after English's FTs.
Quote from: MizzouAstro on March 22, 2009, 11:29:14 PM
My understanding is that either the clock must start and stop on a dead ball, or some other appropriate subbing time must come along, such as the TO Buzz took after English's FTs.
Tiller could physically play in the basketball game and Missouri wanted him to, except for shooting free throws -- thus, they had someone else shoot free throws for him and then wanted to (and did) get him back into the game immediately. -- I believe this is where you stand. Is the above accurate?
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
Tiller could physically play in the basketball game and Missouri wanted him to, except for shooting free throws -- thus, they had someone else shoot free throws for him and then wanted to (and did) get him back into the game immediately. -- I believe this is where you stand. Is the above accurate?
Tiller was physically able to play defense. He was not physically able to shoot. You cannot shoot with an injured shooting wrist.
Quote from: MizzouAstro on March 22, 2009, 11:35:10 PM
Tiller was physically able to play defense. He was not physically able to shoot. You cannot shoot with an injured shooting wrist.
I may be leanings more towards this being a sh1tty rule vs. classless on missouri's part. Thanks for hanging in with my rants and good luck the rest of the way.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 22, 2009, 11:38:42 PM
I may be leanings more towards this being a sh1tty rule vs. classless on missouri's part. Thanks for hanging in with my rants and good luck the rest of the way.
Appreciate it. I understand your frustration, it was a hard fought game for certain. Hopefully you guys have success next year.
Quote from: MizzouAstro on March 22, 2009, 11:41:34 PM
Appreciate it. I understand your frustration, it was a hard fought game for certain. Hopefully you guys have success next year.
I echo MizzouAstro's sentiments. I wish Marquette the best of luck in the future and with Buzz at the helm I'm sure you'll continue to have outstanding teams.
Any rule that allows the coach to choose the free throw shooter after an "injury" is flawed. If the opposing coach got to choose the shooter, almost all of these "injured" players would shoot for themselves. I'm sure that's what would have happened today. That said, nobody "cheated". Mizzou and Anderson used the rulebook to sub a player with fresh legs who couldn't miss today for a guy who was shaken up and gassed. Under the same circumstances, many, probably most, coaches would do the same thing. Good luck to the Tigers vs Memphis.
Quote from: MizzouAstro on March 22, 2009, 11:35:10 PM
Tiller was physically able to play defense. He was not physically able to shoot. You cannot shoot with an injured shooting wrist.
I hate to draw this debate out more, but imagine if this happened with 4 minutes left on the clock. As soon as Tiller came back in, Marquette could foul him every time. The ONLY reason he could come back at all in the game was because there was essentially only a single defensive possession left.
If there were *real* time left he wouldn't have seen the court again - because you can't guarantee a stoppage in play to make the desired substitutions.
The fact that he came back in, means that Missouri was willing to risk him playing on offense. If that's the case, he should have been required (note: I didn't say able) to shoot the FTs.
Nonetheless - congrats. Your guys played well today, and I thank you for participating respectfully in discussion here. Best of luck in your remaining games.
Quote from: ultimate on March 22, 2009, 11:27:30 PM
While it's hard to argue that this cost us the game....my curiosity took over.
Not sure exactly if I'm readying this properly, but to me this is telling me that the game clock needs to tick before a substitute can re-enter the game.
Art. 13. A player who has been withdrawn or replaced by a substitute may re-enter the game at the next opportunity to substitute, provided that the game clock has been properly started after the withdrawal or replacement.
I think the issue on the game clock means that they can't sub for the shooter like they normally can after a missed FT.
1) According to Rosiak in today's MJS, Tiller attempted to return to the game immediately following the free throws and was denied re-entry by the officials.
2) Basketball is not football, where you have an "offense" and a "defense" on the field/court at a given time. Either you are physically able to PLAY THE GAME, or you are not.
3) This is not why we lost. It just smells bad.
I did some research and it turns out that Tiller has been hurt since mid season. He ran into a brick wall in Austin, Texas named Pittman. After watching the game 3 times I realize that Tiller knocked down two free throws about a minute before he went out. So I looked at their team stats, and Tiller is the best free throw shooter on the team (by the stats). Even though he is known for his defense he can shoot free throws. It seems like just a bad turn of events. A freshman should be that calm.
I know that this is an old thread, but I just came across it when Googling for something else.
For all of you Marquette fans that think that Tiller was faking the injury, I thought you should know that he had surgery on his bad wrist. I'm guessing he didn't do it just to prove to the doubters here that he wasn't faking it.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/08/tiller-undergoing-wrist-surgery/
Thanks!
I was losing sleep the last 3 weeks about whether Tiller was faking that whole wrist injury thing!
Quote from: rickd24 on April 13, 2009, 10:33:27 AM
I know that this is an old thread, but I just came across it when Googling for something else.
For all of you Marquette fans that think that Tiller was faking the injury, I thought you should know that he had surgery on his bad wrist. I'm guessing he didn't do it just to prove to the doubters here that he wasn't faking it.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/08/tiller-undergoing-wrist-surgery/
Gosh, I feel better now. The whole run right back to the scorer's table to check back in was probably just to make people think that he *wasn't* hurt.
Quote from: rickd24 on April 13, 2009, 10:33:27 AM
I know that this is an old thread, but I just came across it when Googling for something else.
For all of you Marquette fans that think that Tiller was faking the injury, I thought you should know that he had surgery on his bad wrist. I'm guessing he didn't do it just to prove to the doubters here that he wasn't faking it.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/08/tiller-undergoing-wrist-surgery/
Hmmm. sure sounds like Mike anderson knew what he was doing, putting in a guy who was hot for a guy with an already bad hand. best of wishes for Tiller with his hand. Unfortunately, this news really underscores what was truly happening on the court..... :(
Quote from: rickd24 on April 13, 2009, 10:33:27 AM
I know that this is an old thread, but I just came across it when Googling for something else.
For all of you Marquette fans that think that Tiller was faking the injury, I thought you should know that he had surgery on his bad wrist. I'm guessing he didn't do it just to prove to the doubters here that he wasn't faking it.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/08/tiller-undergoing-wrist-surgery/
Go home.
The problem I have, and I suspect we all have, with this charade is not whether he was faking an injury. The point is that if he was healthy enough to play defense, he should have had to shoot the free throws.
Lock this fracking thread already.
Quote from: BrewCity on April 13, 2009, 02:36:59 PM
The problem I have, and I suspect we all have, with this charade is not whether he was faking an injury. The point is that if he was healthy enough to play defense, he should have had to shoot the free throws.
I would have thought you'd be happy to play against a defender that's only playing with one hand. :)