Clean block.
(Sarcasm alert)
Ben protects the rim one time and this is what happens. (Sarcasm over)
He was a foot above the rim. Well done, kid. The refs gotcha.
How about on the turnover at the end.
Did it hit Ben's foot or not?
Nope.
It did not.
So refs doing as good as guessing.
They did their due diligence and decided there was not enough evidence to overturn the call on the floor. I agreed half the time.
Goaltend
Quote from: NCMUFan on January 15, 2025, 03:03:38 PMSo refs doing as good as guessing.
The only view didn't show ball change direction or rotation, that would tend to confirm it wasn't touched. There was no evidence to overturn.
Quote from: Newsdreams on January 15, 2025, 03:09:15 PMAlways be briiicking
Every block is a lost dunk from him on the other end
In live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.
But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.
The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.
Quote from: wisblue on January 15, 2025, 03:14:59 PMIn live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.
But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.
The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.
Inbounds Depaul and Rivera would have hit a behind the back three
Quote from: wisblue on January 15, 2025, 03:14:59 PMIn live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.
But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.
The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.
Yea, they stopped live play on that. Who grabbed the ball after the block?
Quote from: Shaka Shart on January 15, 2025, 03:16:12 PMInbounds Depaul and Rivera would have hit a behind the back three
In regulation, Rivera hadn't hit a 3 since the 8 minute mark. The only threes they had in regulation after that was Gunn at 6:42 and Enright at 1:42.
I had to look it up, of course. It was OT where Rivera lit it up. After we stretched it to a double digit lead.
I don't know how the refs are instructed, but on a play like that it would be better to let the play go at least until a team has clear possession. Treat it like they do with fumbles in football. If not sure, they let the play go. If they determine there was no fumble they can always go back and reset the clock.
On this play because the whistle blew it isn't clear who would have grabbed the rebound.
Quote from: Shaka Shart on January 15, 2025, 03:16:12 PMInbounds Depaul and Rivera would have hit a behind the back three
Triple Lindy three.
Quote from: wisblue on January 15, 2025, 03:14:59 PMIn live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.
But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.
The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.
It would have gone to Depaul on the possession arrow with 3.1 seconds to play. Depaul was most certainly going to drill a fadeaway three pointer off the board from 24 feet for the win. As it turned out, MU got the best case scenario. I too thought there was clear evidence of a clean Gold block.
It real time I thought it was a goaltend until I saw the replay.
The ball changed rotation twice. Once when it hit Ben's hand and then when it hit the backboard.
On the DePaul turnover at the end, sitting in Sect.122 (not the best angle), my fear was that they were going to call a blocking foul on Gold. He clearly was guarding #1 (Rivera) as he hustled up court, staying in front of him as best he could. IMO, Shaka was looking for the 7 footer to alter the 3, rather than foul or steal the ball (w/a guard) before he took it. Like SS (above) suggested, Rivera was Kryptonite at the end, and he was looking to end it.
The replay pretty clearly showed a clean block.
On the out-of-bounds play, there wasn't a perfect replay angle, but it looked to me like it hit Gold's foot based on the way the ball turned before it hit the floor.
Clean block, but you can't blame the refs for getting it wrong in real time and there wasn't "clear and convincing" evidence to overturn the call.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 15, 2025, 04:12:42 PMClean block, but you can't blame the refs for getting it wrong in real time and there wasn't "clear and convincing" evidence to overturn the call.
This. And as many others have said, it was the best outcome for Marquette. Almost like fouling in the closing seconds to prevent an opponent from getting a tying 3 pointer. So they get both FTs and lose by one point.
Quote from: NCMUFan on January 15, 2025, 03:01:17 PMHow about on the turnover at the end.
Did it hit Ben's foot or not?
Right in front of me and I thought in real time it was not off of Ben and that they might go to the tape for purposes of the clock.
But:
1. Refs were a joke- just looking at each other- two did not want to review; the one closest to Holt was getting an earful and wanted to review; I think they finally decided that they could all agree on a clock review (which then would enable them to overturn the out of bounds ruling).
2. I was more worried in real time (they couldn't make this call on review) that they were going to call Ben for a foul- he was incredibly physical and basically forced the DP guy to go out. Strong play, but right on the edge.
Quote from: wisblue on January 15, 2025, 03:14:59 PMIn live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.
But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.
The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.
Marquette would have got possession. There was a jump ball under a minute that went to DEPaul. The arrow was pointed toward Marquette. When Kam threw the ball away to Jop at the end I was saying Kam should have just held it since Marquette would have got possession. That said. Spoke with Kam's Dad and David's Mom at the game. They are the best families and players.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 15, 2025, 04:12:42 PMClean block, but you can't blame the refs for getting it wrong in real time and there wasn't "clear and convincing" evidence to overturn the call.
Fair
Quote from: wisblue on January 15, 2025, 03:32:29 PMI don't know how the refs are instructed, but on a play like that it would be better to let the play go at least until a team has clear possession. Treat it like they do with fumbles in football. If not sure, they let the play go. If they determine there was no fumble they can always go back and reset the clock.
On this play because the whistle blew it isn't clear who would have grabbed the rebound.
Unfortunately, the rule requires the refs to call the goaltend in order to review it. I don't think they can let play continue to see who gets the ball, then go to review.
Given the circumstances, I was glad to take MU's chances with a last shot/OT.
Quote from: MarquetteMike1977 on January 15, 2025, 04:40:47 PMMarquette would have got possession. There was a jump ball under a minute that went to DEPaul. The arrow was pointed toward Marquette. When Kam threw the ball away to Jop at the end I was saying Kam should have just held it since Marquette would have got possession.
I'm not sure you're right about this. The TV
definitely showed that DePaul had the possession arrow (I just went and checked). And there was no jump ball under a minute that went to DePaul (checked that too). After MU inbounded to start the second half, I don't think that there was ever a time that the possession arrow
on TV wasn't with DePaul. I can't say with certainty that TV had it right...but I don't specifically recall a jump ball in the second half. There was one in the first half (5:31).
MMike1977 may have been five Miller Lites in...
Quote from: BrewCity83 on January 15, 2025, 05:01:00 PMMMike1977 may have been five Miller Lites in...
Lol 2 Miller Lites per game limit
Quote from: LloydsLegs on January 15, 2025, 04:32:30 PMRight in front of me and I thought in real time it was not off of Ben and that they might go to the tape for purposes of the clock.
But:
1. Refs were a joke- just looking at each other- two did not want to review; the one closest to Holt was getting an earful and wanted to review; I think they finally decided that they could all agree on a clock review (which then would enable them to overturn the out of bounds ruling).
2. I was more worried in real time (they couldn't make this call on review) that they were going to call Ben for a foul- he was incredibly physical and basically forced the DP guy to go out. Strong play, but right on the edge.
I wouldn't say the refs were a joke, but they did miss a call that, on replay, they clearly missed. Stevie's drive and elbow into the defender when he missed the shot but got his own rebound and scored. I've not see others comment on it, but it seemed to be a clear foul on Stevie. Huge play that went our way; so, I thought the refs were perfect (especially as both the goaltending and out of bounds calls involving Gold worked in our favor).
Quote from: MarquetteMike1977 on January 15, 2025, 05:11:00 PMLol 2 Miller Lites per game limit
Very weak, Travis wouldn't approve
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 15, 2025, 04:58:58 PMI'm not sure you're right about this. The TV definitely showed that DePaul had the possession arrow (I just went and checked). And there was no jump ball under a minute that went to DePaul (checked that too). After MU inbounded to start the second half, I don't think that there was ever a time that the possession arrow on TV wasn't with DePaul. I can't say with certainty that TV had it right...but I don't specifically recall a jump ball in the second half. There was one in the first half (5:31).
Stand corrected again. You are correct was talking about overtime. There was a jump ball with 15.7 seconds in overtime. Was saying Kam should have held on to the ball with 9.5 seconds left in overtime when it went out of bounds on his pass to Jop since Marquette had the arrow. But again spoke with Kam's Dad and David's Mom at the game they are the best families and players.
It was as close as could possibly be - but I was also looking at the rotation of the ball on the replay and first it changes when ben hits it then it changes again when it hits glass then it changes again when he hits it again.
The ball did hit Ben's foot, BUT - what the TV commentators missed - is on the next bounce it landed on a DePaul foot out of bounds. Who knows if the refs saw that on review, but the TV guys were totally focused on the wrong thing. Ben's foot was not the last touch.
And they missed 2 goaltends early in the 2nd half.
Quote from: MarquetteMike1977 on January 15, 2025, 05:11:00 PMLol 2 Miller Lites per game limit
Only 2? That game along with the OT warranted at least a 12 pack. Or perhaps you had your 2 allotment and 6 shots of Buffalo Trace?
It was obviously very close and I don't blame the refs for originally calling it a goaltend. But it was also very obviously a clean block.
Also, the idea that people were glad they left it as a goaltend because DePaul was going to hit a 3 to win it is wild. People are clouded by what happened in overtime. DePaul had 27 second half points, including the clean block called a goaltend. They were 3/13 from 3 in the second half.
It was a block. Clearly, based on replay.
As Seth Davis noted on Twitter - the refs are supposed to call a goaltend, then review. If they don't call a goaltend, then there is no review at all.
If we're going to use replay review in sports, especially in the case of objective calls, then they need to get it correct.
Otherwise, get rid of review
Quote from: MarquetteMike1977 on January 15, 2025, 06:10:12 PMStand corrected again. You are correct was talking about overtime. There was a jump ball with 15.7 seconds in overtime. Was saying Kam should have held on to the ball with 9.5 seconds left in overtime when it went out of bounds on his pass to Jop since Marquette had the arrow.
I like to think that Shaka or one of his assistants reminded the players of this, but so much is going on in situations like that, it's so frenetic, that even if Kam knew we had the arrow his instincts took over and told him, "I'm in trouble! I have to get rid of the ball!" Unfortunate. Thankfully that didn't cost us the game.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 16, 2025, 10:45:21 AMIt was a block. Clearly, based on replay.
As Seth Davis noted on Twitter - the refs are supposed to call a goaltend, then review. If they don't call a goaltend, then there is no review at all.
If we're going to use replay review in sports, especially in the case of objective calls, then they need to get it correct.
Otherwise, get rid of review
There also needs to be a clearly defined standard of review, though. In the NCAA's case, the standard is that in order to overturn a call on the floor, the replay evidence needs to be "clear and convincing." As a MU fan who very much wanted it to be called a clean block, I can't fault the refs for not finding "clear and convincing" from the replays we saw.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 16, 2025, 10:45:21 AMIf they don't call a goaltend, then there is no review at all.
That's a deeply flawed rule.
Example:
1. offense down 1, 5 seconds to go
2. a layup attempt is blocked
3. offense immediately gets ball back and makes put back layup
4. At the same time, the refs call goaltending on the floor for the lone reason that they can review it regardless if they thought it was goaltending.
5. Call is "reversed" (it was a clean block after all)
6. Offense gets completely screwed because the immediate put back basket they scored is taken off the board
7. Offense takes the ball out of bounds with a second left, misses and loses
This exact scenario cost Northwestern(?) a game within the last week. Common sense just eludes the people making some of these rules. The above scenario is a glaringly obvious possibility. There needs to be an upgrade in competence with the rule makers because college basketball is falling far behind other leagues in this regard.
We just had it two years ago in the Marquette-Michigan State NCAA game where the goaltend on Tyler's shot couldn't be reviewed because a goaltend was not called on the court.
Quote from: WarriorFan on January 16, 2025, 04:06:50 AMIt was as close as could possibly be - but I was also looking at the rotation of the ball on the replay and first it changes when ben hits it then it changes again when it hits glass then it changes again when he hits it again.
The ball did hit Ben's foot, BUT - what the TV commentators missed - is on the next bounce it landed on a DePaul foot out of bounds. Who knows if the refs saw that on review, but the TV guys were totally focused on the wrong thing. Ben's foot was not the last touch.
And they missed 2 goaltends early in the 2nd half.
Are you insinuating Steve Lappas may not have done a good job?!?
Quote from: MU82 on January 16, 2025, 12:06:13 PMI like to think that Shaka or one of his assistants reminded the players of this, but so much is going on in situations like that, it's so frenetic, that even if Kam knew we had the arrow his instincts took over and told him, "I'm in trouble! I have to get rid of the ball!" Unfortunate. Thankfully that didn't cost us the game.
Really the first game this year that had these type of end of game scenarios. Should be a valuable film session. A similar one is when there was 1 second left in overtime and we were inbounding from the sideline and threw a pass towards DePaul's basket. About an hour and a half later, I thought Gard's squad executed the same scenario a lot better throwing it down towards their basket and having their big touch it. MU has had good success in close games though, so it's hard to complain.
Quote from: wadesworld on January 16, 2025, 09:48:03 AMIt was obviously very close and I don't blame the refs for originally calling it a goaltend. But it was also very obviously a clean block.
Also, the idea that people were glad they left it as a goaltend because DePaul was going to hit a 3 to win it is wild. People are clouded by what happened in overtime. DePaul had 27 second half points, including the clean block called a goaltend. They were 3/13 from 3 in the second half.
Glad to know my opinion was clouded by OT, even though I was hoping in real time that the call wasn't reversed.
If Marquette was playing Auburn in the championship game, I would most certainly root for the call to be overturned. But against DePaul, I'd rather take my chances in OT instead of them needing to make only one shot to win.
Quote from: CountryRoads on January 16, 2025, 01:50:11 PMReally the first game this year that had these type of end of game scenarios. Should be a valuable film session. A similar one is when there was 1 second left in overtime and we were inbounding from the sideline and threw a pass towards DePaul's basket. About an hour and a half later, I thought Gard's squad executed the same scenario a lot better throwing it down towards their basket and having their big touch it. MU has had good success in close games though, so it's hard to complain.
Good points. The only potential problem with throwing it down court is that if the inbounder excitedly and/or mistakenly throws it too far and it never gets touched, the opponent gets to inbound the ball under its offensive basket. That's what happened in our win over Creighton 6 years ago. But yes, one hopes that the inbounder knows to throw it where other people can touch it and it can't possibly sail out of bounds untouched.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 16, 2025, 01:00:21 PMThere also needs to be a clearly defined standard of review, though. In the NCAA's case, the standard is that in order to overturn a call on the floor, the replay evidence needs to be "clear and convincing." As a MU fan who very much wanted it to be called a clean block, I can't fault the refs for not finding "clear and convincing" from the replays we saw.
In real time, I understand not seeing the play as it happened.
In replay review - unless you don't believe the laws of physics - there is no world where it's not 100% conclusive that it was a block.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 16, 2025, 02:28:22 PMIn real time, I understand not seeing the play as it happened.
In replay review - unless you don't believe the laws of physics - there is no world where it's not 100% conclusive that it was a block.
Yep. Not sure how the refs missed that on replay. Looked pretty clear cut.
Quote from: MU82 on January 16, 2025, 02:23:33 PMThat's what happened in our win over Creighton 6 years ago.
After reading the references to this situation in another thread, I went back and watched the last minute of that game (https://youtu.be/rtheE10ntDo?si=whcYB0wzDl2xGk0w). Still hard to believe that ending.
Down 5 with 0.7 remaining has to be a record.
Makes down 4 with 45 seconds remaining at DePaul feel like an entire ballgame.
NM: Hit quote instead of edit.
Quote from: cheebs09 on January 16, 2025, 01:46:44 PMAre you insinuating Steve Lappas may not have done a good job?!?
Dickie Simpkins would have gotten it right.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 16, 2025, 02:37:07 PMAfter reading the references to this situation in another thread, I went back and watched the last minute of that game (https://youtu.be/rtheE10ntDo?si=whcYB0wzDl2xGk0w). Still hard to believe that ending.
Always wild to watch. If Chartouny makes the initial putback, we likely lose. Just one of those "every miniscule thing had to go exactly right" situations and every one did.
Joey boxes out one time....
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 16, 2025, 02:37:07 PMAfter reading the references to this situation in another thread, I went back and watched the last minute of that game (https://youtu.be/rtheE10ntDo?si=whcYB0wzDl2xGk0w). Still hard to believe that ending.
One of my favorite MU games. It was also the epitome of "video game mode" for Markus in OT especially. The game @Providence a little later in the year was the peak of the Wojo era. That was a really fun team for the majority of that season. A good reminder to enjoy the process and season because we never know how it will turn out.
Sacar Anim walked so Stevie Mitchell could run