At the Bradley Center they stopped showing replays as the crowd was getting hot so there's a few things you may have seen better at home.
1) What happened at the end where Nova essentially got a free timeout? I assume they just started the clock too early when the Nova guy reached down for the ball but didn't actually touch it, however, the time they added back on the clock didn't seem to make sense for that to be the case.
2) There were three box out fouls on Marquette on what appeared to be over the back on Nova each time. What did the replays show? Were they saying the Marquette players slid under the Nova player while they jumped for the ball? Rowsey could be seen saying "what do you want me to do" over and over.
3) Was Raft going crazy? That's my guy!
I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
1. Yes. When Brunson faked grabbing the ball they started the clock. He grabbed at and started to move. He yelled at the refs for the lost time so they stopped to review. They then tracked the time from when he grabbed it to whistle blown and moved the out of bounds to dead ball location.
2. Depending on the call but yes typically the case. MU was sliding under or backing under the player as they were going up.
3. most of the game no but when we tied it he was getting excited
Thanks!
1. Yeah clock operator and ref botched the play. Never really understood why it took so long and why 10.4 was put back on instead of 11.6, but whatever.
2. I thought all three were horrible calls. Raf and Brando called them good calls, which seemed ridiculous to me. I don't see how a smaller guy could ever legally block out a bigger guy if that's how it's enforced.
3. Raf was openly trying to cheer on Marquette most of the game I thought.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 25, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
At the Bradley Center they stopped showing replays as the crowd was getting hot so there's a few things you may have seen better at home.
1) What happened at the end where Nova essentially got a free timeout? I assume they just started the clock too early when the Nova guy reached down for the ball but didn't actually touch it, however, the time they added back on the clock didn't seem to make sense for that to be the case.
2) There were three box out fouls on Marquette on what appeared to be over the back on Nova each time. What did the replays show? Were they saying the Marquette players slid under the Nova player while they jumped for the ball? Rowsey could be seen saying "what do you want me to do" over and over.
3) Was Raft going crazy? That's my guy!
I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
They never explained the 10.4, i can only assume they judged he had the ball for 1 sec before the ref blew the whistle?
Raft said the one on Rowsey was a foul cuz he kept rooting him out. They discussed the other two but were not difinitive.
Were very compkementary if mu and their fight n of course disvussed the previous meltdowns, were baffled my MuS misses at the line n raft went so far as to call luke "psychologically impaired"
Gave mu credit on a number of ocassions for hanging in there throught the game
Someone else can comment on the box-outs (seemed like bad calls to me), but here is my take on the end of game clock: when Nova threw the ball in, Brunson let it roll a little, leaned down to grab it but didn't actually touch it. The ref started the clock erroneously thinking Brunson had touched the ball. However, in the course of the play it did appear that the ball bounced off of Brunson's leg, which is when the clock should have been started. I believe that the difference between the 11 or so seconds on the clock and the 10.4 that was put back on the clock (at teh sideline throw-in) was the amount of time that the clock should have been running once his body touched the ball.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 25, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
At the Bradley Center they stopped showing replays as the crowd was getting hot so there's a few things you may have seen better at home.
1) What happened at the end where Nova essentially got a free timeout? I assume they just started the clock too early when the Nova guy reached down for the ball but didn't actually touch it, however, the time they added back on the clock didn't seem to make sense for that to be the case.
2) There were three box out fouls on Marquette on what appeared to be over the back on Nova each time. What did the replays show? Were they saying the Marquette players slid under the Nova player while they jumped for the ball? Rowsey could be seen saying "what do you want me to do" over and over.
3) Was Raft going crazy? That's my guy!
I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
1. Clock started before Brunson touched the ball.
2. Rowsey and Howard fouls were basically (IMO) because they were sliding under the Nova guy. Soft calls but not terrible. Third one on JJJ was because he held the arm. Definitely the right call.
3. Not over the top, but what you would hope for in this situation, Marquette or not. What struck me is how they kept praising Katin, Wilson, and Hauser for the comeback. They seemed to value Hauser's one 3 almost as much as the other two guys.
Quote from: MomofMUltiples on January 25, 2017, 03:16:42 PM
Someone else can comment on the box-outs (seemed like bad calls to me), but here is my take on the end of game clock: when Nova threw the ball in, Brunson let it roll a little, leaned down to grab it but didn't actually touch it. The ref started the clock erroneously thinking Brunson had touched the ball. However, in the course of the play it did appear that the ball bounced off of Brunson's leg, which is when the clock should have been started. I believe that the difference between the 11 or so seconds on the clock and the 10.4 that was put back on the clock (at teh sideline throw-in) was the amount of time that the clock should have been running once his body touched the ball.
Yeah I was expecting them to put 11.6 up so I couldn't figure out the 10.4. That makes sense though.
Quote from: BallBoy on January 25, 2017, 03:15:33 PM
1. Yes. When Brunson faked grabbing the ball they started the clock. He grabbed at and started to move. He yelled at the refs for the lost time so they stopped to review. They then tracked the time from when he grabbed it to whistle blown and moved the out of bounds to dead ball location.
2. Depending on the call but yes typically the case. MU was sliding under or backing under the player as they were going up.
3. most of the game no but when we tied it he was getting excited
Given that move and Brunson's immediate reaction to the time, what are the odds that's a strategy via Wright? It's worth a shot to try to fool the clock operator and get a free timeout.
It may seem far-fetched but most successful college bball coaches are constantly searching for every little detail to get them an advantage so it wouldn't surprise me.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2017, 03:20:15 PM
Given that move and Brunson's immediate reaction to the time, what are the odds that's a strategy via Wright? It's worth a shot to try to fool the clock operator and get a free timeout.
It may seem far-fetched but most successful college bball coaches are constantly searching for every little detail to get them an advantage so it wouldn't surprise me.
One of the announcers noted that's exactly the type of thing Wojo would have done during his playing days and called it a crafty play.
Announcers kept saying that the building was getting randy or something like that.
Quote from: T-Bone on January 25, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
Announcers kept saying that the building was getting randy or something like that.
(https://media.tenor.co/images/44b2e84ba4cb886418a27c555d84e444/raw)
Quote from: MomofMUltiples on January 25, 2017, 03:16:42 PM
Someone else can comment on the box-outs (seemed like bad calls to me), but here is my take on the end of game clock: when Nova threw the ball in, Brunson let it roll a little, leaned down to grab it but didn't actually touch it. The ref started the clock erroneously thinking Brunson had touched the ball. However, in the course of the play it did appear that the ball bounced off of Brunson's leg, which is when the clock should have been started. I believe that the difference between the 11 or so seconds on the clock and the 10.4 that was put back on the clock (at teh sideline throw-in) was the amount of time that the clock should have been running once his body touched the ball.
I think that was the explanation...but I think the right call would have been to recognize that the correctable error (starting the clock) occurred before Brunson ever touched the ball. IMO they should have given Nova the ball back under our hoop with the 11+ seconds left.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2017, 03:20:15 PM
Given that move and Brunson's immediate reaction to the time, what are the odds that's a strategy via Wright? It's worth a shot to try to fool the clock operator and get a free timeout.
It may seem far-fetched but most successful college bball coaches are constantly searching for every little detail to get them an advantage so it wouldn't surprise me.
My first thought was something along the lines of "hogwash," but thinking about it, I definitely agree that a coach may teach that "move" to his team. The downside is that with only 10 seconds on the clock, you run the chance of wasting half of it arguing with the ref if he doesn't blow the whistle; worse yet, if the clock doesn't start and you make another "fake" attempt (the ball is still rolling), you run a much greater risk of a T/O or jumpball.
In short, it has to be executed very precisely otherwise it's more likely to backfire than to work. That said, if it was a deliberate move, it had to come from above, and I could see Jay trying to pull it off. But Nova has admitted they have several end-of-game/length-of-court plays they go over every day in practice... so if any team doesn't need to call a timeout to know exactly what play they're going to run in that situation, it's Nova.
Truth be told, I was watching Jenkins the entire time. I could have sworn that's what they were going to do... in retrospect, if MU was to lose the game on a late 3 by Jenkins, I suppose I could've lived with that. Thankfully, I won't.
Both of the announcers called it pretty square, not one-sided at all. Raf talked a little about Wojo
as a player and what kind of team he was trying to build, one of the better game calls this year.
I did not like the box out calls. I thought the Nova players on 2 of them jumped early in order to draw the foul. Neither time did I see Rowsy or Howard back in after they made contact and stayed engaged. They were not the first one off the floor was the penalty basically.
I'm no rules expert but I do recall the announcers speaking of how the players were using the posteriors to box out by pushing into the Nova players with them. So i went to the rule book:
Section 29. Rebound
Art. 1. A rebound occurs when a player secures control of the ball after a try
for goal. In a rebounding situation, there is no player or team control.
Art. 2. To establish or maintain legal rebounding position, a player shall not:
a. Displace, charge or push an opponent.
b. Extend either or both shoulders, hips, knees or extend either or both
arms or elbows fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that
the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact
with any of these body parts occurs.
c. Bend his body in an abnormal position to hold or displace an opponent.
d. Violate the principle of verticality
So i assume they were using their "hips" too much when boxing out by pushing back into the Nova players. Never really see it called though.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR17.pdf
edited to add in link
Quote from: MU03Grad on January 25, 2017, 04:03:45 PM
I'm no rules expert but I do recall the announcers speaking of how the players were using the posteriors to box out by pushing into the Nova players with them. So i went to the rule book:
Section 29. Rebound
Art. 1. A rebound occurs when a player secures control of the ball after a try
for goal. In a rebounding situation, there is no player or team control.
Art. 2. To establish or maintain legal rebounding position, a player shall not:
a. Displace, charge or push an opponent.
b. Extend either or both shoulders, hips, knees or extend either or both
arms or elbows fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that
the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact
with any of these body parts occurs.
c. Bend his body in an abnormal position to hold or displace an opponent.
d. Violate the principle of verticality
So i assume they were using their "hips" too much when boxing out by pushing back into the Nova players. Never really see it called though.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR17.pdf
edited to add in link
How does one not named Rick Astley "extend either or both shoulders"?
Quote from: Benny B on January 25, 2017, 04:08:11 PM
How does one not named Rick Astley "extend either or both shoulders"?
wonder if they mean dip or lead into the players body with your shoulder? No clue how you would do with both :D
Quote from: injuryBug on January 25, 2017, 04:02:08 PM
I did not like the box out calls. I thought the Nova players on 2 of them jumped early in order to draw the foul. Neither time did I see Rowsy or Howard back in after they made contact and stayed engaged. They were not the first one off the floor was the penalty basically.
Those of you that played/coached at a high enough level, help me out here. I played relatively good baseball (not pro); high enough that I understood and appreciated the unwritten rules. It seems to this peaked at HS basketball guy, that a box out, even with a step back would equate to over the back on the incoming opponent even if the "rule book" says you backed into him. Is that off the mark?
You know, years ago, there would be a 5-sec. call if the inbounder didn't get it to a teammate in that time period. Something must have changed in the rules (or their interpretation) because for years now we've seen teams that are behind let the ball roll up to not use clock. Anyone know anything definitive on this?
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on January 25, 2017, 04:14:51 PM
You know, years ago, there would be a 5-sec. call if the inbounder didn't get it to a teammate in that time period. Something must have changed in the rules (or their interpretation) because for years now we've seen teams that are behind let the ball roll up to not use clock. Anyone know anything definitive on this?
Rule changed from 5 seconds to received ball to 5 secs to inbound ball, i.e., released by throw in.
Don't know why HC let the outlet pass roll downcourt and give Nova precious seconds
Hope they address that for the next time
As for the fouls on MH and Rowsey, seems punitive on little guys and 50/50 over the back
Glad Hauser was in position for that last rebound
Quote from: Bocephys on January 25, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
One of the announcers noted that's exactly the type of thing Wojo would have done during his playing days and called it a crafty play.
I interpreted that only to mean that Wojo would have noticed that the clock started before he touched the ball; not that he would have done that intentionally to get the extra time out. I'd have to hear it again to decide if he might have been talking about it in a more strategic way.
3) Raf did make some comment at the end about Al watching from above or something like that.
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on January 25, 2017, 04:20:29 PM
3) Raf did make some comment at the end about Al watching from above or something like that.
Yes and he gave the "seashells and balloons" line.
Quote from: radome on January 25, 2017, 04:10:37 PM
Those of you that played/coached at a high enough level, help me out here. I played relatively good baseball (not pro); high enough that I understood and appreciated the unwritten rules. It seems to this peaked at HS basketball guy, that a box out, even with a step back would equate to over the back on the incoming opponent even if the "rule book" says you backed into him. Is that off the mark?
I'm less knowledgeable than you, but the rule says to maintain verticality and, not displace the opponent. Meaning to box out you must get to your spot first, stay vertical, and not cause movement of your opponent. Sounds fair, but I'd guess "displacement" is often achieved without being called a foul. That's what is crappy about those calls on the little guys.
Quote from: Boozemon Barro on January 25, 2017, 03:16:23 PM
1. Yeah clock operator and ref botched the play. Never really understood why it took so long and why 10.4 was put back on instead of 11.6, but whatever.
2. I thought all three were horrible calls. Raf and Brando called them good calls, which seemed ridiculous to me. I don't see how a smaller guy could ever legally block out a bigger guy if that's how it's enforced.
3. Raf was openly trying to cheer on Marquette most of the game I thought.
Raf and Brando were really pro-MU for much of the broadcast, imo. Raf seemed to sincerely want MU to make a game of it, and see the program rise again.
The box out rules have changed. What MH and AR did used to be legal.
Quote from: MU03Grad on January 25, 2017, 04:25:49 PM
Yes and he gave the "seashells and balloons" line.
https://twitter.com/PaintTouches/status/824093496978051074
Raf was very surprised that AL never beat a #1 ranked Team.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 25, 2017, 03:20:15 PM
Given that move and Brunson's immediate reaction to the time, what are the odds that's a strategy via Wright? It's worth a shot to try to fool the clock operator and get a free timeout.
It may seem far-fetched but most successful college bball coaches are constantly searching for every little detail to get them an advantage so it wouldn't surprise me.
My personal opinion is they intended to do that to get the MU defender to back up. HC was up close and as soon as he thought Brunson got the ball he backed out. When Brunson didn't grab it, the clock should not have started and allowed the ball to go further down the court. Great strategy unfortunately it confused the shot clock operator just like the faked out HC and caused the refs to review. Nova got a Timeout which I think was the unplanned part of but an ancillary benefit.
Quote from: tower912 on January 25, 2017, 04:46:55 PM
The box out rules have changed. What MH and AR did used to be legal.
My sense is that this must have been an emphasis for these refs--which is why it was called three times on us. My guess is that it is to encourage the inside player to still go up for the rebound, not just clear out. I'm guessing that if our smaller guys had just gone up for the rebound, a few of those might have actually flipped to over-the-back calls that we were all looking for--want to see players going for the ball.
On the other hand, I think that some of that might have finally flipped in our favor when Duane got fouled getting that rebound at the top of the key which sent him to the line to take the first lead. While the Nova player did make some contact, I was surprised that was called a foul in that context given the way they were generally letting players play. The difference in that case was that Duane went up strong for the rebound, which I think helped the ref to call the foul on Nova's aggressiveness.
Quote from: BallBoy on January 25, 2017, 05:53:25 PM
My personal opinion is they intended to do that to get the MU defender to back up. HC was up close and as soon as he thought Brunson got the ball he backed out. When Brunson didn't grab it, the clock should not have started and allowed the ball to go further down the court. Great strategy unfortunately it confused the shot clock operator just like the faked out HC and caused the refs to review. Nova got a Timeout which I think was the unplanned part of but an ancillary benefit.
Ive got to give you a big "atta boy" right there as I was thinking the same thing.
Quote from: BallBoy on January 25, 2017, 05:53:25 PM
My personal opinion is they intended to do that to get the MU defender to back up. HC was up close and as soon as he thought Brunson got the ball he backed out. When Brunson didn't grab it, the clock should not have started and allowed the ball to go further down the court. Great strategy unfortunately it confused the shot clock operator just like the faked out HC and caused the refs to review. Nova got a Timeout which I think was the unplanned part of but an ancillary benefit.
Shot clock operator had nothing to do with it. Refs start the clock from the floor.
Quote from: MomofMUltiples on January 25, 2017, 03:16:42 PM
Someone else can comment on the box-outs (seemed like bad calls to me), but here is my take on the end of game clock: when Nova threw the ball in, Brunson let it roll a little, leaned down to grab it but didn't actually touch it. The ref started the clock erroneously thinking Brunson had touched the ball. However, in the course of the play it did appear that the ball bounced off of Brunson's leg, which is when the clock should have been started. I believe that the difference between the 11 or so seconds on the clock and the 10.4 that was put back on the clock (at teh sideline throw-in) was the amount of time that the clock should have been running once his body touched the ball.
Mom know best!
On those rebounding fouls, they explained the problem was our guys kept backing up even as the rebounder jumped in the air and they ended up undercutting rebounder thus a foul. They should have either held their position or gone up for the rebound.
Thought that refs picked on Marcus by calling fouls when he was breathing on players. Very tacky.
Quote from: Newsdrms on January 26, 2017, 01:24:44 PM
On those rebounding fouls, they explained the problem was our guys kept backing up even as the rebounder jumped in the air and they ended up undercutting rebounder thus a foul. They should have either held their position or gone up for the rebound.
This. Our guys never went up for the rebound and thus was looked at as undercutting.
Quote from: Loose Cannon on January 25, 2017, 04:57:35 PM
Raf was very surprised that AL never beat a #1 ranked Team.
It's impossible to beat a #1 team when you are the #1 team.
How can a guy like Markus Howard ever get a heavily contested rebound if he's forced to jump when the opponent does to avoid getting called for a foul? The whole point of the box out is to allow someone like Markus to clear a guy that's taller than him out of the play. If that player chooses to jump over Markus to get the rebound that should be an over the back foul.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on January 26, 2017, 02:25:10 PM
How can a guy like Markus Howard ever get a heavily contested rebound if he's forced to jump when the opponent does to avoid getting called for a foul? The whole point of the box out is to allow someone like Markus to clear a guy that's taller than him out of the play. If that player chooses to jump over Markus to get the rebound that should be an over the back foul.
That's what was so frustrating about that stretch of play. It felt like even when our guys did things right, they were wrong.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on January 26, 2017, 02:25:10 PM
How can a guy like Markus Howard ever get a heavily contested rebound if he's forced to jump when the opponent does to avoid getting called for a foul? The whole point of the box out is to allow someone like Markus to clear a guy that's taller than him out of the play. If that player chooses to jump over Markus to get the rebound that should be an over the back foul.
I think the point is that (in theory at least) the Nova players were not jumping over Markus/Rowsey, they were jumping straight up, and our guards went under them. If our players went straight up for the ball too with inside position, that should force the outside player to enter their space to contest the rebound, creating an over-the-back call.
It just seemed like the refs were really emphasizing that they weren't going to allow us to only box out without actually going up for the rebound. Regardless of whether it is right or not, we should have adjusted after the first time or two that this happened, and hopefully it is a good teaching lesson for the future if a ref crew calls it the same way.
Quote from: Loose Cannon on January 25, 2017, 04:57:35 PM
Raf was very surprised that AL never beat a #1 ranked Team.
You have to remember between about 1965 and 1975 UCLA was ranked #1 almost every week, and there losses were few and far between. I think they had 5 total losses over a seven year stretch.
Quote from: MUMountin on January 26, 2017, 02:33:30 PM
It just seemed like the refs were really emphasizing that they weren't going to allow us to only box out without actually going up for the rebound. Regardless of whether it is right or not, we should have adjusted after the first time or two that this happened, and hopefully it is a good teaching lesson for the future if a ref crew calls it the same way.
very good point here. We can sit here and debate whether or not those were the right calls, but the fact of the matter is they were called that way and hopefully our guys will learn from it and be ready for it in the future.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on January 26, 2017, 02:36:06 PM
very good point here.
Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.
I hope our guys continue to box out like that going forward. We aren't going to be outjumping teams or simply be taller than teams. Need to clear guys out to get the rebound. I hope Wojo is on film applauding them.
Quote from: elephantraker on January 25, 2017, 04:19:43 PM
Don't know why HC let the outlet pass roll downcourt and give Nova precious seconds
Hope they address that for the next time
As for the fouls on MH and Rowsey, seems punitive on little guys and 50/50 over the back
Glad Hauser was in position for that last rebound
I imagine HC let the ball roll because he didn't want to challenge and let Brunson get past him and give Nova a numbers advantage.
I thought the fouls were legit, but basically when you have two guys leaning on each other and one jumps for the ball, the other guy is naturally going to back into him because the resistance is gone. Need to get off the ground quicker.
FWIW, I watched the game again and we got killed on the defensive glass, but as soon as Fischer left the game and we went with Hauser, Cheatham, Reinhardt, Wilson and JJJ we got 8 out of 10 defensive rebounds, though we gave up the put back to Hart at 72-70. Cheatham especially was solid rebounding down the stretch.
Quote from: Blueprint on January 25, 2017, 03:53:40 PM
Both of the announcers called it pretty square, not one-sided at all. Raf talked a little about Wojo
as a player and what kind of team he was trying to build, one of the better game calls this year.
After watching on replay--I agree.
However, this has to be at least the 3rd time that I have heard Brando call #23 JuJaun Jackson. Reminds me every time of Len Elmore calling Lazar.......Haywood.
Quote from: oldwarrior81 on January 26, 2017, 02:34:49 PM
You have to remember between about 1965 and 1975 UCLA was ranked #1 almost every week, and there losses were few and far between. I think they had 5 total losses over a seven year stretch.
Thanks, that explains a lot.
Quote from: wadesworld on January 26, 2017, 03:15:09 PM
I hope our guys continue to box out like that going forward. We aren't going to be outjumping teams or simply be taller than teams. Need to clear guys out to get the rebound. I hope Wojo is on film applauding them.
It will repeatedly be called a foul. Boxing out with your butt is one thing. But you can't continue to move back into the guy behind you when he is in the air. It is a very easy foul call.
Quote from: TinyTimsLittleBrother on January 26, 2017, 03:54:56 PM
It will repeatedly be called a foul. Boxing out with your butt is one thing. But you can't continue to move back into the guy behind you when he is in the air. It is a very easy foul call.
exactly...which is why every coach teaches the person boxing out to release. i have seen coaches teach smaller guards to hold their box-out and not release/jump if they get caught boxing out a much taller player. this was before the rule change, and i'm sure MU coaches have made the players aware of that...but old habits die hard.
It is a foul now. The problem is that you are allowed to get your butt into a player and hold them there, but once they jump you can no longer back them out. In the first half, Luke had a box out and the rebound came down and bounced between his legs. A legal box out because the player behind him was not in the air. Howard, Rowsey, and JjJ got called for maintaining contact when the player jumped. At that point, it became undercutting.
If you can't move into a player or it's a foul then every single time a shot goes up there should be a foul called. There's going to be contact on every single shot, including free throw shots and shots that go in. People jostle for rebounding position, people box out. That's just what you do.
This was the first game I can remember a foul being called. I highly doubt this was just some scouting report adjustment Wojo made for Villanova. My guess is, given our lack of height, Wojo has been training our guards to box out, hold your box if you have a bigger guy going for a rebound on you, and go get the rebound if nobody is near you.
Quote from: TinyTimsLittleBrother on January 26, 2017, 03:54:56 PM
It will repeatedly be called a foul. Boxing out with your butt is one thing. But you can't continue to move back into the guy behind you when he is in the air. It is a very easy foul call.
I do so appreciate the combination of "boxing" and "butt" in a single sentence.
WHO CARES, WE WON. ON WARRIORS
I'm with Wades. I believe everyone when they say its a foul. But I have watched a lot of basketball this year and this game is the first time I remember seeing those called.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 26, 2017, 09:36:11 PM
I'm with Wades. I believe everyone when they say its a foul. But I have watched a lot of basketball this year and this game is the first time I remember seeing those called.
I think you are right--even if it is technically foul, it is rarely called. And, to Wades point, I don't have a problem with Wojo coaching them in general to do this, because most refs aren't going to call it.
That said, Wojo should use this game to teach them that while they may get away with that in 9/10 games, some refs might focus in on it, and you have to tweak your play to match what the refs are going to do. If you get called once, ok. Twice, really need to try something different. Three times? C'mon man.