No issue with that. We’re an 11/12 because of Lafayette, not you. You guys are shooting the lights out of late - but difference today was free throws.
Basketball PREVIEW/LIVE THREAD: Rutgers Basketball versus Iowa Part II
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
No issue with that. We’re an 11/12 because of Lafayette, not you. You guys are shooting the lights out of late - but difference today was free throws.
Looking back at our cold stretch....
From 14:24 to 5:55 (8:29 in game minutes) we scored 3 points.... 1-12 from the field, and 1-2 from the FT line. And Iowa didn't really do much other than throw a lazy zone on us - we got plenty of open looks, just didn't hit them.
Even with all the other nonsense, if we go 5-12 there it's basically tied going into halftime.
From 14:24 to 5:55 (8:29 in game minutes) we scored 3 points.... 1-12 from the field, and 1-2 from the FT line. And Iowa didn't really do much other than throw a lazy zone on us - we got plenty of open looks, just didn't hit them.
Even with all the other nonsense, if we go 5-12 there it's basically tied going into halftime.
Go reread my post. Your comments aren't about anything I said
None of think we outplayed you. I’m kind of relieved we don’t have 2 more B1G games before the tourney.
Hyatt tried his best impression of a basketball player. Playing him and Mag or Miller at the same time is a momentum changer. Why not rest one starter at a time. We had a nice lead and gave it away.
Let’s say the refs conservatively cost us 4-5 points. At the times we closed to ten those points could have made things more interesting, maybe added some pressure to Iowa. Would it have changed outcome? Very unlikely. Would say 90% Iowa, but would have given us a shot.
Chi Hawk u are an ass. Your team is soft & got saved from the refs. Play this game in a fair setting & its a different story. By the way, your team is knocked out early. And enjoy the bad whistle against Indiana
I don't think anyone serious really believes this, but the refs can be awful independently of us getting beat.
Don’t know if I seen before that the ref’s go to the monitor to decide on whether to call a flagrant foul on elbow to Ron’s face and not only decide to call one, but call a foul on Ron’s face. Then the long delayed call on Ron on the missed 3, then the technical fouls. All of this was worth more than 12 points. With fair calls, it should have been close down to final buzzer.
You were outplayed in every facet of the game. I guess the time spent on those farm fields was beneficial. LOL
This. Pike had a rough stretch there with a bad rotation of players. Coupled with the refs being hot garbage today didn’t add up to a win for us.
Totally. And we certainly had some perspective on that following the 48-46 loss earlier in the season. Iowa is a much different team today than that game. As is Rutgers.
Personally I just don’t think it’s appropriate for fans to immediately blame refs every time a team loses a game. That stuff evens out in the long run - and most often evens out in each game if you actually look from an independent perspective, which none of us can in an Iowa vs Rutgers game.
All that said, I like the heart in the Rutgers program, and think it’s great to see you all in the top half of the big ten. You all are a tourney team, and deserve to be in. Best of luck. Represent the big ten well.
I agree for the most part. There's a reason Bo Boroski is universally hated among college basketball fans lol
True, but pick any top official from the SEC/BIG12/ACC and you will hear similar things. They don’t have easy jobs, and they will never get games 100% right. Not even close. The goal is to not impact the outcome of the game and that over the course of a game, officiating should even put fairly 50/50 for both teams. A hated ref is often also the most fair ref because they will even out games to ensure their calls are not impacting the outcome.
Iowa is far and away a better offensive team than Rutgers. Rutgers is far and away a better defensive team than Iowa.
I don't think Rutgers deserved to beat Iowa today - we went cold for a long stretch in the first half (scored 5 points in 8+ minutes) and that was it, regardless of what the refs did and didn't call.
Ehh.. I agree with the general sentiment but there is a reason Bo Boroski is one of like three refs whose names I actually know and it's not because the quality of his officiating is high.
If Murray gets his 2nd there and goes to the bench for the rest of the first half, Rutgers takes the lead by halftime.
It's just a completely different game with a top 10 pick off the court for a significant amount of time.
Then who knows what happens
It's just a completely different game with a top 10 pick off the court for a significant amount of time.
Then who knows what happens
Courtney Greene is also top official, and I don't have nearly the "crap, here we go" response when I see his name as when I see Boroski's.
Didn’t think Murray deserved anything there. Don’t think Ron did either. Wouldn’t have wanted to win with him being ejected for two guys playing intense basketball.
No one is saying eject him or even give him a flagrant, just leave the normal offensive foul
Think we’re a bit jaded on the officiating overall, not necessarily from this game. Has felt like we played 5 on 8 a good bit this season. Best of luck tomorrow and hopefully on Sunday.
Here's the thing for me.... regardless of what happened on the floor, the concept that during replay you can 1) uncall something that was whistled on the floor, and 2) call a foul that wasn't called on the floor, is absurd to me.
I don't think you can do that for any other foul call. Imagine if while reviewing who touched the ball last out of bounds, the refs were able to call a foul they saw away from the play... or if when reviewing whether a three was made before the shot clock expired, they were able to award a shooting foul and three shots.
If you're going to the monitor to check flagrant or not, that should be the only outcome of that review.... 1) it's flagrant, 2) it's not.
Bro, you’re crazy if you think that’s a foul on Murray. They looked at it at the monitor for that exact reason. They talked it through, and it’s not even a debate that it wasn’t a foul on Murray. So get over that idea because he was never going to the bench for a foul that wasn’t a foul.
Hate the rules, but the refs called the right call. I don’t love the foul on Harper there either, but it is what it is. The refs called the foul by the book after reviewing and discussing as a crew for minutes to make sure they got it right.
Us going 1-8 and them going 4-9 at that stretch was the difference there. Keep me honest here, but sometimes it feels like we were obliged to keep up from downtown and traded a drive for high percentage 2 for a low percentage 3.
Respectfully, any defense-first team is going to have issues with officiating. Just a fact. Playing tough D is a great thing, and can win games. But playing tough D will always result in fouls too. And when the other team makes their FT’s, it can be the game.
No argument here. Officiating was outrageous. The reversal of that offensive foul on Murray in the first half changed the whole trajectory of the game.
He would’ve gone to the bench with two fouls, instead he stays and hits 2 free throws. Should’ve gotten a T. 4-6 point swing there.
And soft offensive teams always have issues with officiating when they play teams that actually play D unless the refs bail them out all game like today
It was whistled a foul on the floor. The review was to see if there was intent or not, and there clearly wasn't. That should have been the end of it - 2nd foul on Murray, play on.
Would it have been a bad call? Sure - but they made a slew of those. You shouldn't get to "uncall" a foul when reviewing for a flagrant - that's crazy. You certainly shouldn't be able to retroactively make a call you didn't make on the floor.
I think the offensive foul/cylinder call is unique in the ref's latitude - it should be consistent with all other reviews, though.
We should go and review every one they called to review if it was by the book foul. We can give you a list of them to review first. Maybe we can add some time back afterwards once adjusting score and giving teams shots they should have gotten after the reviews?
The announcers thought they were reviewing intent. It’s clearly not what they were reviewing. You guys have to understand that.
Hasnt just been on D. You catch the end of the RU - Indiana game? Johnson grabbed Pauls arm, hands to the face, maybe a head butt and shoved him into the bench before Paul threw a punch that nearly cost us the game. Probably should have been offsetting with 2 ejections.
To be clear though, you guys were the better team today. Just like you’ve been over the last month.
Just checked the rulebook.
The only situations where refs have the leeway to change calls made on the floor is for the cylinder rule and the hook-and-hold rule.
Both allow refs to re-adjudicate the entire play during replay, which is crazy to me.
"d. Fouls
1. After a call has been made, determine if a flagrant personal foul or a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a contact dead ball technical foul occurred. When it is determined that a flagrant personal or flagrant 2 contact technical foul did not occur, but a contact dead ball technical foul or common foul did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized. When the review discloses, by indisputable evidence, that there was no contact, the foul call shall be reversed with no foul charged.
a. When there is a foul called for contact, the officials, with a plausible reason, may review the severity of that foul during the dead-ball period following the call. When the ball becomes live, there shall be no review of the made call.
b. When there is a foul called for swinging of the elbows involving the cylinder rule or a hook and hold play, the officials may review the play and adjudicate all penalties by removing fouls, assessing fouls against any player or concluding that no foul(s) occurred."
Disagree with that. Cylinder might have been the right call. Not sure you can reverse one foul and then call another after the fact.
