Won 5 vs 8

#102
#102
vol4220 said:
Not that I wanted more whistles but there were a ton of push offs and arm bars that were never called. Even when Z fouled out, yes he was backwards but the replay showed the guy pushing him the whole time.
Click to expand...
cncchris33 said:
Judgement call. You'd have to ask the guys in stripes, last night. My guess is that they didn't believe the intent was to make contact with Mashack's face, and they didn't think he went out of his way to make contact above the shoulders outside his attempt to draw contact and go up to make the shot.
Click to expand...

I have heard from refs more than once intent is not an element of flagrant fouls, only intentional fouls. Introducing the risk of injury is what it is. Kind of like crown of the helmet in football. Did you or did you not!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and cardvolfan
#103
#103
walkenvol said:
While it was somewhat even, they switched officiating styles 1/2 way through the first half from “letting them play” to a super tightly called game. IMO. Obviously, they then switched to a completely biased called game for the home team.

The Illinois coach ought to spend some time directing his players instead of constantly crying to the officials - he deserved to lose.
Click to expand...
At the under 12 timeout, the rest of the half was called 180 degrees opposite the first 8-10 minutes. It was as if the officials huddled and said “we have got to start calling more fouls,” and by gosh durn, they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and walkenvol
#104
#104
cardvolfan said:
These calls where an offensive player is extending 45 degrees or so into a vertical defender and thereby initiates contact are still called in favor of the offense what seems like 85-90% of the time. I get that basketball is hard to call, but don’t officials understand what the guy with the ball is trying to do? I ask that rhetorically, but last night their freshman guard was initially all night, and in effect, was using himself as a battering ram. For anyone who listened to Underwood post game, that’s kind of what he’s suggesting.
Click to expand...
If the defender is entirely vertical, he is supposed to be given latitude to defend his space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and walkenvol
#105
#105
cardvolfan said:
These calls where an offensive player is extending 45 degrees or so into a vertical defender and thereby initiates contact are still called in favor of the offense what seems like 85-90% of the time. I get that basketball is hard to call, but don’t officials understand what the guy with the ball is trying to do? I ask that rhetorically, but last night their freshman guard was initially all night, and in effect, was using himself as a battering ram. For anyone who listened to Underwood post game, that’s kind of what he’s suggesting.
Click to expand...

This is one of the plays that almost makes me stop watching becaues it's been this way for years and they REFUSE to address or change how this is called. And it's not even like it's that hard to see, it's literally the defender is standing with his arms straight up and the offensive player jumps into his arms and they call a foul.

I've said it over and over but college basketball officiating is by far the worst in any organized sports I watch. For the level of play it's unacceptable that it is as bad as it is and never seems to be any better. And NOTIHNG ever seems to be done about it. I wish it would be something they yell about the first 10 minutes of every college basketball broadcast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris4Vols22, chuckiepoo and cardvolfan
#106
#106
GUNTERSVOL said:
I have heard from refs more than once intent is not an element of flagrant fouls, only intentional fouls. Introducing the risk of injury is what it is. Kind of like crown of the helmet in football. Did you or did you not!
Click to expand...
I believe it has to be contact outside of natural movement. In other words, it was likely determined that Boswell was attempting to get the shot up in a natural movement (a basketball move) and incidentally made contact with Mashack's face. So I guess it is the difference in intentional contact and incidental contact. Intent is not necessarily an element of the play, but determining whether the contact occurred as a result on incidental contact as part of natural movement to attempt the shot.
 
#108
#108
GUNTERSVOL said:
I have heard from refs more than once intent is not an element of flagrant fouls, only intentional fouls. Introducing the risk of injury is what it is. Kind of like crown of the helmet in football. Did you or did you not!
Click to expand...
The flagrant rule was updated in 2022 and now says any contact that is excessive in nature, or unnecessary, or avoidable, or uncalled for and not required by circumstances of the play. In other words, a bunch of mumbo jumbo that's nebulous. Earlier, they removed the elbow above the shoulders = automatic flagrant part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lukusw and cardvolfan
#109
#109
I saw one play with an Illinois player with the ball driving the lane, where he dropped a shoulder, leaned forward, and hit the defender with a hockey shoulder check, knocking him back about 5 feet. No call. I saw several times where Illinois players dribbled in, reached out, and pushed a defender back. No calls.

It seemed to me that the Illinois coach spent much more time jawing at the officials than he did talking to his players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Element01
#110
#110
VolsSportsFan said:
This is one of the plays that almost makes me stop watching becaues it's been this way for years and they REFUSE to address or change how this is called. And it's not even like it's that hard to see, it's literally the defender is standing with his arms straight up and the offensive player jumps into his arms and they call a foul.

I've said it over and over but college basketball officiating is by far the worst in any organized sports I watch. For the level of play it's unacceptable that it is as bad as it is and never seems to be any better. And NOTIHNG ever seems to be done about it. I wish it would be something they yell about the first 10 minutes of every college basketball broadcast.
Click to expand...
It really is egregious. Admittedly sometimes we get the advantage and sometimes the other team gets the advantage, but coaches (per Underwood presser) know how that’s going to be called the majority of time and teach that to draw fouls. Used to be all these phantom fouls called as charges, and now charges are rarely called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#111
#111
VolArmy74 said:
The flagrant rule was updated in 2022 and now says any contact that is excessive in nature, or unnecessary, or avoidable, or uncalled for and not required by circumstances of the play. In other words, a bunch of mumbo jumbo that's nebulous. Earlier, they removed the elbow above the shoulders = automatic flagrant part.
Click to expand...
Yes. The foul should have been a charge because Mashack was in legal guarding position & Boswell jumped into him. But once they called a block, they couldn't overturn it on review. However, on review it should have been Flagrant 1 on Boswell - excessive & unnecessary contact to defender's head & neck meets every criteria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EZE and cardvolfan
#112
#112
VOLLeeann said:
Well called game. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

There were several missed calls in the last few minutes…and all went against the visitors.

The call against Mashack was BS when the offensive player initiated the contact to the head.

Number 5 against Lanier was a phantom call.

And Number 5 against Zeke was a bad call IMO, too.
 
#113
#113
Lukusw said:
Yes. The foul should have been a charge because Mashack was in legal guarding position & Boswell jumped into him. But once they called a block, they couldn't overturn it on review. However, on review it should have been Flagrant 1 on Boswell - excessive & unnecessary contact to defender's head & neck meets every criteria.
Click to expand...

This.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and Lukusw
#114
#114
College sports in general have an officiating crisis. Basketball isn’t any better than football at this point.
 
#117
#117
VOLLeeann said:
OK what is the appropriate criteria for "calling a good game"?
Click to expand...
Call the game consistently 1st and 2nd
Officials did not let the teams play with
any flow , took way longer play b/c officials took over if u didn't see this I can't explain it to you....Go Vols
 
#118
#118
wrangler said:
I saw one play with an Illinois player with the ball driving the lane, where he dropped a shoulder, leaned forward, and hit the defender with a hockey shoulder check, knocking him back about 5 feet. No call. I saw several times where Illinois players dribbled in, reached out, and pushed a defender back. No calls.

It seemed to me that the Illinois coach spent much more time jawing at the officials than he did talking to his players.
Click to expand...
I hate that he was talking to official way more than players ....SEC Championship
Kirby was visiting with refs most of game and OT.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#120
#120
GUNTERSVOL said:
Bet that would stop if they charged them with t/o when they step on field or court and address officials.
Click to expand...
Give them the out of coaches box warning like in football then start hitting them with technical fouls. The coaches shouldn’t be able to walk onto the court and have exclusive conversations with officials. JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Element01 and chuckiepoo
#122
#122
For the most part, officials were consistent. Vols just play more physical.
Our style of play with an aggressive defense will always result in Vols
Having more fouls.

Officials called it too tight on both teams, they had 5 or 6 in foul trouble first half
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#123
#123
Purplehaze26 said:
For the most part, officials were consistent. Vols just play more physical.
Our style of play with an aggressive defense will always result in Vols
Having more fouls.

Officials called it too tight on both teams, they had 5 or 6 in foul trouble first half
Click to expand...
It was tight and somewhat consistent in the first half. Illinois had no one in any serious foul trouble in the second half. Until they had to start giving fouls just to get TN in the 1&1 with 18 seconds left, TN had been called for 12 fouls and ILL 4. ILL had shot 15 FTs and TN 3. That is what kept them in the game.

BOTH teams were playing physical but only one was consistently getting called for fouls. It isn’t so much the ones WE get called for (except the elbow to JM’s head and the push to ZZ from behind that resulted in fouls on TN) as much as the ones on ILL that weren’t called. There was no change in style of play from one half to the other when we shot more than 20 FTs. Just in the whistle……
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benionsopinion
#124
#124
VOLLeeann said:
OK what is the appropriate criteria for "calling a good game"?
Click to expand...

We must have watched different games. They called the game way too tight the first half and both teams had roughly the same number of fouls. It was overboard on the whistle but at least it was even.

The second half they continued to call it tight for us but did not keep calling that way for Illinois. They had only 4 fouls with under minute to go. I refuse to believe a game they called that tight for both teams the first half and us the second would result in only 4 fouls for them the second half. It logically makes no sense at all.

I'm not saying they had money on the game, they hate UT, or any conspiracy crap, I'm saying this type of control the refs have on the flow of the game and inconsistency is unacceptable. Pick a lane, call it tight for both teams, call it loose for both teams, but stay consistent. It's like an umpire changing up his strike zone for each team, you can't do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ttocswob
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top