The reffing.
Before anyone jumps all over me, this NOT one of those, the refs were biased, totally blew the game for us threads. I think the reffing was absolutely fair, in fact I think it favored us most of the time (no flagrant on Chris? I was just hoping they didn't call flagrant 2).
The refs swallowed their whistles and let the boys play. Only 28 fouls total which I believe is the lowest Marquette has seen this season. Which is a fine, since they called it fairly both ways. But if we had refs who were a little more strict with the new rules, we would have rolled in this game.
ASU basically played a 6 man rotation. Carson, Bachynski, Marshall, and the Russian all played 33+ minutes. McKissic came off the bench for 18 minutes. Three other players saw 5 minutes or less. A more tightly called game and all of the sudden Carson, Marshall, and Gilling are fouling out or benched. Bachynski should have never been able to play 39 minutes and only pick up 1 foul, that in and of itself is a small miracle.
You have to find a way to win, no matter what style of reffing is being used. I'm just pointing out that if a tighter game had been called, we probably win by 7-10 instead of losing by 2.
Really hard to say. Plenty of calls went our way, and I would bet that ASU fans believe that they could have won by 7-10 if the game were called a little tighter on our end.
BTW, by the rule, I think Chris should have gotten a flagrant. That said, I think the rule is stupid, so I'm good with the no call.
I think the unmentioned factor was that Mayo did/could not play. He just might have been the difference last night...of course will never know.
Quote from: MUSF on November 26, 2013, 01:44:14 AM
Really hard to say. Plenty of calls went our way, and I would bet that ASU fans believe that they could have won by 7-10 if the game were called a little tighter on our end.
BTW, by the rule, I think Chris should have gotten a flagrant. That said, I think the rule is stupid, so I'm good with the no call.
It was a "basketball play". You could hear the refs telling the coaches that. Chris didn't wind up and swing his elbow. They explained it in a game last year as "the arm moving faster than the body". Bachynski's arm is in contact with Chris', almost pushing it up. Bottom line, they can't call all contact to the head a flagrant.
The difference of Chris' non-flagrant in slow-motion versus real-speed was ridiculous. He definitely looked reckless in slow-motion and while I didn't think it showed any intent, a flagrant-1 wouldn't have surprised me. But they showed the replay at regular speed and you could see that the guys just got tangled while going for position. It was the right call.
Part of this is that we just don't have many guys who have shown the ability to drive and draw fouls, especially with Mayo out. We've made a living on this in the past. D. Wilson did it a bit and it looks like JJJ can be that type of player eventually. But another factor is that D. Wilson going to the line isn't exactly the best use of a possession since he is a career sub-50% FT shooter.
I have to agree with the OP about the reffing. It was fair for both sides I thought, but it clearly was not the same ticky tack foul called games that the first four games were. They definitely let them play the entire way. Would it have been different if called like the previous games? We'll never know. We'd have had more fouls as well.
Big play in the game was when Carson made a floater and he knocked down the defender, would have been his 4 th and would have been a huge play, of course we made Marshall look like Michael Jordan so who knows.
Great effort last night, I was proud of the team.
ASU paying us back for taking Lockett.
That glow stick could have been the determining factor in the game. Coach was super pissed.
Those 4 FTs were Gardner's only 4 of the game. That surprised me.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on November 26, 2013, 08:38:07 AM
ASU paying us back for taking Lockett.
We may get a chance for some double payback on Sunday night.
From the rule book...
Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2
personal foul.
I am surprised that CO didn't get a flagrant 1 based on the wording of this rule. Like I said, I think the rule is stupid so I like the no call.
Quote from: copious1218 on November 26, 2013, 11:27:43 AM
Those 4 FTs were Gardner's only 4 of the game. That surprised me.
As good as Bachynski was, I find it hard to believe he had 7 perfectly clean blocks and only 1 foul. Well, especially as he had one very, very clear goaltend in there. But the refs let them play, and that really went to his benefit.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 26, 2013, 11:37:33 AM
As good as Bachynski was, I find it hard to believe he had 7 perfectly clean blocks and only 1 foul. Well, especially as he had one very, very clear goaltend in there. But the refs let them play, and that really went to his benefit.
And he played 39 minutes
Quote from: copious1218 on November 26, 2013, 11:27:43 AM
Those 4 FTs were Gardner's only 4 of the game. That surprised me.
Gardner played up top most of the game, so he was not getting that many touches in the paint. What is surprising is that he still had 4 offensive rebounds.
Quote from: MUSF on November 26, 2013, 11:36:33 AM
From the rule book...
Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2
personal foul.
I am surprised that CO didn't get a flagrant 1 based on the wording of this rule. Like I said, I think the rule is stupid so I like the no call.
Probably should have been a double foul as Bachynski was all over Chris.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 26, 2013, 12:44:05 AM
The reffing.
Before anyone jumps all over me, this NOT one of those, the refs were biased, totally blew the game for us threads. I think the reffing was absolutely fair, in fact I think it favored us most of the time (no flagrant on Chris? I was just hoping they didn't call flagrant 2).
The idea that that could've been called a flagrant 2 is why strict, 'by the book rules' in officiating are the worst.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 26, 2013, 11:37:33 AM
As good as Bachynski was, I find it hard to believe he had 7 perfectly clean blocks and only 1 foul. Well, especially as he had one very, very clear goaltend in there. But the refs let them play, and that really went to his benefit.
Yup. Plus a lot of inside calls were not going our way that were in previous games. It's going to be hard for players to adjust if the officiating is this inconsistent b/t games.
Quote from: Aughnanure on November 26, 2013, 01:15:19 PM
Yup. Plus a lot of inside calls were not going our way that were in previous games. It's going to be hard for players to adjust if the officiating is this inconsistent b/t games.
I really didn't have a problem with the reffing, but it certainly wasn't consistent to what the NCAA has been preaching and what we have seen in our first 4 games. Honestly, that game was called like a Big East game. And with their advantage inside, that really favored ASU. Not saying it wasn't fairly reffed, but there should be game-to-game consistency, not just call-to-call.
I agree with those of you who think that a little tighter reffing would've helped us due to ASU's relative lack of depth. But that game sure was much more watchable than the rest of the games this year. There was actually a flow to the game, not a whistle every 10 seconds.
Despite the loss it was a very enjoyable game to watch.