Pike: Can’t Defend the Foul Line
- Thread starter mildone
- Start date
When I used to belong to the Court Club, Pikiell would definitely vent some refereeing frustration from recent games, and as I recall it was often unprompted, though sometimes in response to a fan question.
That’s what you think you are doing
But in fact you are interpreting it just the same
You do not KNOW
Boggles my mind that you don’t get that.
I think most D1 coaches are probably wise enough to know the refs mostly don’t GAF what a coach says after a game. Unless it’s disrespectful.
And there would be nothing at all shrewd about a coach publicly being disrespectful to refs. Be about as shrewd as giving a cop shit during a traffic stop.
Be that as it may, he seems smart enough to know to focus on what he can control when with the team, and not waste time crying over spilled milk or crying unfair. I can see him being frustrated by the end of game missed call with OSU. Who wouldn’t be?
But dwelling on it just isn’t something he can afford do. Maybe in the off season.
Coaches do it all the time. All sports all the time. Seriously WTF are you even talking about at this point
Like talking to a brick wall
Nobody can know what is in the heart of another. That goes without saying and is irrelevant.
We can know what they say, though, and can resist the urge to spin it.
Yeah? And what effect does it have? How is it ever shrewd?
I have seen coaches get fined for being disrespectful to refs. That’s about the only effect I’ve ever seen. Real shrewd.
From his presser:
”But when we sat down and we guarded for possessions, we were pretty good and just need to do a better job of defending without fouling”
https://scarletknights.com/news/2023/1/2/mens-basketball-wins-at-no-1-purdue.aspx
”But when we sat down and we guarded for possessions, we were pretty good and just need to do a better job of defending without fouling”
https://scarletknights.com/news/2023/1/2/mens-basketball-wins-at-no-1-purdue.aspx
I also said this: “And how exactly is that even remotely relevant here?”. My experience is totally irrelevant and it wasn’t me who brought it up. I was responding to someone’s false assumptions about me. That doesn’t help your narrative, but don’t let that slow you down. 🤣
You want to spin what Pike said to make you feel better. I don’t and am taking his words at face value, focusing on the positives.
You are free to spin it. It’s drama-queen stuff, IMO, ”oooh, Pike called out the refs”. Not my thing. Sure doesn’t seem like his thing either. But you have fun with it.
My interpretation: Pike is gonna try to get the team to do a better job at defending without fouling”.
The interpretation of some my detractors in the thread: Pike is saying kill all the refs.
🤣
Disagree. He was in their faces all night and they made some terrible calls.
I read his lips during one sequence. He got in a ref’s face, pointed at him and shouted, “That one’s on you — he pushed my guy!”
To be honest, I was whining a little on the inside tonight, on some of the calls. 🙂
But I thought we made some fouls that didn’t get called, too. And we played really, really great, really hard D. When we play so hard, so physically and handsy on D, I think we’re gonna get more fouls called on us than teams that are far less intense in D.
And most teams we play don’t defend so hard. Seton Hall did, IIRC. And in the second half, Purdue stepped it up on D (and got away with a lot of stuff). But usually we’re playing harder on D than our opponents, IMO.
We have a lot of depth this season, and Pike and his staff did a good job managing the rotation so nobody fouled out. Cam was close, and the victim of some questionable calls. But he needs to learn to avoid getting cheap fouls down the stretch ‘cause he can drop 3s where others cannot.
Last edited:
You are disagreeing with something I never said. Being on the refs during the game isn’t what this tread, or my initial post, is about. This is not supposed to be a thread about officiating. Nothing wrong with him working, or lobbying refs. I said that earlier. But that’s not my point in this thread (fine to talk about it, just saying it wasn’t my initial point).
I was talking about the goodness of his stament of intent after the game. He saw all the fouls (good and bad calls alike) and he stated his intent to do what he can to defend while drawing less foul calls.
I am baffled that this is in any way controversial. He was talking about what he and the team can do to improve rather than wasting time crying unfair about officiating.
We fans can cry about officiating if we want. But he’s got more important stuff to do and he’s focused on that. This thread is about how great it is that we have such a coach. There’s 24 hours in a day and even 1 hour dwelling on bad officiating, which no coach or player can fix, is an hour that could’ve been spent working on techniques to avoid cheap touch fouls, or similar stuff.
Last edited:
I didn’t denigrate anybody for how they felt about the officiating. I don’t GAF how anybody feels about officiating.
So, at least so far in this thread, your reading comprehension is not just fine.
I started the thread to talk about Pike and his focus on doing whatever he can to help the team win. Not to talk about officiating. Go start a “I hate the refs“ or a “the refs hate RU” thread for that, if it’s what keeps you up at night.
I know what you were talking about, and my insinuation was that he was pissed at the refs and some of the officiating, and I do think his statement was a bit of a slap at them as well as coach speak regarding staying out of foul trouble.
He said “you can’t defend the free throw line”
This is NOT a clear cut statement like “the sky is blue” or “the refs were horrible” ie lines that say exactly what they mean / no interpretation necessary.
It’s Like Matt painters quote “If we were going to war, we'd stop by New Jersey and pick them up." By itself that quote makes no sense - Matt painter isn’t in the army, why is he going to NJ? By just reading the “plain words” the statement doesn’t make sense. In order to make sense of his quote the listener MUST interpret it/ APPLY meaning in order to understand what he meant.
Obviously interpretation of painters quote is easy
Similarly….
“You can’t defend the free throw line” makes no sense by the “plain words” that of statement. Of course you can’t defend the FT line!! By itself the statement makes no sense . It’s like “the sun will come out tomorrow” - by itself it really doesn’t make sense (of course it will - what’s the point? the point needs to be APPLIED by the listener). Pikes quote is exactly like that - of course you can’t defend FT line - whats pikes point? the listener HAS to apply meaning to it. You applied meaning based on your feelings/ biases, just as others have based on theirs.
Since his statement wasn’t as clear as painters - listeners applied different meaning to it.
I understand this and acknowledged from the start. I can’t comprehend how you fail to understand this
This is NOT a clear cut statement like “the sky is blue” or “the refs were horrible” ie lines that say exactly what they mean / no interpretation necessary.
It’s Like Matt painters quote “If we were going to war, we'd stop by New Jersey and pick them up." By itself that quote makes no sense - Matt painter isn’t in the army, why is he going to NJ? By just reading the “plain words” the statement doesn’t make sense. In order to make sense of his quote the listener MUST interpret it/ APPLY meaning in order to understand what he meant.
Obviously interpretation of painters quote is easy
Similarly….
“You can’t defend the free throw line” makes no sense by the “plain words” that of statement. Of course you can’t defend the FT line!! By itself the statement makes no sense . It’s like “the sun will come out tomorrow” - by itself it really doesn’t make sense (of course it will - what’s the point? the point needs to be APPLIED by the listener). Pikes quote is exactly like that - of course you can’t defend FT line - whats pikes point? the listener HAS to apply meaning to it. You applied meaning based on your feelings/ biases, just as others have based on theirs.
Since his statement wasn’t as clear as painters - listeners applied different meaning to it.
I understand this and acknowledged from the start. I can’t comprehend how you fail to understand this
Last edited:
If the game was at the RAC and called this way, I’d be livid. The bottom line is that it has to be human nature to be influenced by the crowd around you on 50 / 50 calls as a ref even if you don’t realize it. That’s why you always have to play 10 points better than your opponent on the road to walk away with a win.
Am I correct in assuming the lead referee on one end becomes the trail Referee on the other end?
If that’s the case, you have two separate Refs who see the game differently or have to completely different philosophies on inside fouls.
I can’t think of another sport where this is the case.
I feel sorry for you - you don't understand subtlety and nuance.
Yes, that's what I think that line means, not really a shot at the refs.
Really isn't too logical that Pike would be wasting time taking subtle shots at refs through the media. As if the refs rush to the locker room and wait with bated breath to hear what this or that team's coach has to say about their officiating after a game. Surely refs hang on coach's every word that way. LOL
This has been a weird thread. I posted to highlight Pike's great way of addressing the fouls in a positive and productive way. To compliment him for avoiding totally pointless drama and focus entirely on doing what can help his team win games. And that somehow creates great controversy. Go figure.
"Ignore his actual words, Pike must be calling out the refs because I'm calling out the refs. And he's obviously exactly like me, with my fan mentality!" Mmkay. 😃
