I wonder if Beilein regrets not subbing in Teske in that situation when we got the ball in the half court. He was holding his own against Isaac. Better than Wagner, anyway.
Congrats
- Thread starter MiamiWolv
- Start date
After watching it a few more times this morning (and on a screen that has better resolution than what I was watching last night), I'm more convinced that the officials got the call right, but I find the trajectory argument unconvincing.
Had Mathias slapped the top of the ball, then sure, the ball would have had to go down, unless Matthews's right hand stayed on the ball and pushed it out horizontally. But, the replay looks like Dakota grazed the side of the ball, which could, I suppose, send it spinning up and out like a small sliver of wood when struck by a glancing blow from an ax.
But, it does look clear to me that Matthew's right hand stayed on the ball, so I think the officials got it correct.
BTW, clbndgm poses an interesting question about seeing vs. inferring. For the good of the game, I hope officials are limited to what they actually see (i.e., whether or not Matthews was the last to touch the ball). I think allowing them to infer conclusions based on things like the trajectory of the ball opens up a really bad can of worms.
Purdue caught a break last night. Maybe not as big a break as last year at OSU when the officials counted a late bucket that clearly came after the shot clock expired, but I did not expect a 50/50 call like that to go our way. Not on the road; not that late in the game; and definitely not when it required overturning the call on the court.
Had Mathias slapped the top of the ball, then sure, the ball would have had to go down, unless Matthews's right hand stayed on the ball and pushed it out horizontally. But, the replay looks like Dakota grazed the side of the ball, which could, I suppose, send it spinning up and out like a small sliver of wood when struck by a glancing blow from an ax.
But, it does look clear to me that Matthew's right hand stayed on the ball, so I think the officials got it correct.
BTW, clbndgm poses an interesting question about seeing vs. inferring. For the good of the game, I hope officials are limited to what they actually see (i.e., whether or not Matthews was the last to touch the ball). I think allowing them to infer conclusions based on things like the trajectory of the ball opens up a really bad can of worms.
Purdue caught a break last night. Maybe not as big a break as last year at OSU when the officials counted a late bucket that clearly came after the shot clock expired, but I did not expect a 50/50 call like that to go our way. Not on the road; not that late in the game; and definitely not when it required overturning the call on the court.
Absolutely correct call after changed...not debatable once the correct camera angle was there. Even the announcers after seeing DAkota's hand long gone and the ball in Matthews hand knew what the correct call was. What about the defection from Cline with a second or so to go as he tried to keep it in bounds and stay in bounds that was ruled a "possession change"...a whole 30 seconds to work with..and there were others. YOu shouldn't have left the TV when the replays were going on or not watch the game on your phone
18 posts?
I remember watching a game not long after that rule about checking position was first implemented. One of the head of officials was with the broadcast. He was explaining what the officials are instructed to look for and he specifically mentioned trajectory and spin on the ball, with heavy emphasis on the spin. He said if the spin changes, that confirms it has been touched again, so yes they are able to "infer" while making their judgment.
Nice! I’m moving down to Houston in May. I might ask you a few questions about the area. Can I shoot you an email?
I got home at exactly the time that it happened. So that was the only part of the game that I got to see live. There was no doubt that the call should have been reversed. I did have the doubt that the refs wouldn't have the balls to do it!!
And you clearly see the Michigan player's hand still carrying the ball long after Mathias' hand was far away. There were 2 replay angles that showed it.
Should be a good game this weekend
If MSU wins, it would passes its likely sternest test before the Purdue-MSU game and sets up one hell of a Feb 10 matchup
If Michigan wins, then kudos to Belein - my 2nd favorite BIG coach - and puts Purdue 2 games clear of the Izziots
If MSU wins, it would passes its likely sternest test before the Purdue-MSU game and sets up one hell of a Feb 10 matchup
If Michigan wins, then kudos to Belein - my 2nd favorite BIG coach - and puts Purdue 2 games clear of the Izziots
Last edited:
It’s funny how challenging this is for refs, even with slow mo replay, to get right. We have the same inherent bias and view the same replay with polar opposite results. I don’t want their job.
If you reread my post I was not indicating they were robbed. What shocked me was that the call was reversed because the replay evidence did not seem to be obvious. They were screwed because that reversal usually only happens when the evidence is more obvious that what we were looking at there. I read everyone here saying it was obvious blah blah blah. Well, it was not obvious or it would not have taken them that long. I guess your black and gold tinted glasses give you all super vision.
I felt that given the horrendous conclusion (from a MI view) someone should acknowledge the fact they manned up and congratulated us on a big win without even referencing the fact that from their side they felt they were jobbed by the refs. Something we seem to make a habit of on this site.
And as a general rule of thumb for the rest of us to be aware of when future posters think about starting to post on this site- what is a minimum number of posts to indicate someone has the wisdom and insight to make it worth expressing an opinion? I would like to have a number so I can be sure to keep my feelings of superiority intact until that floor level is reached by future posters.
Of course, you are free to infer anything you want but I personally, do not think an inference should be drawn from the amount of time it took them to make the call.
This seems fair in regards to throwing a few fair-minded UM posters a bone. Although the refs ended up making the objectively 'correct' call, the reversal certainly wasn't a sure thing, and the amount of time allocated to make a decision is open for debate.
Since the time required to make/announce the decision seems to be the crux of the argument, a couple things to keep in mind:
(1) They not only reversed the call, but also changed the clock. No one knows how much of that review time was spent on determining possession vs. how many tenths of a second to add.
(2) There were 2 or 3 angles provided to the TV viewers almost immediately, one being much more definitive. Did the officials have access to all angles right away or were they waiting for some amount of time just to see the appropriate viewing angle? People assume the refs are looking at the same video feed as the TV viewers, but I don't think that is true. It may have taken 5 minutes just to get a decent slow motion view at the proper angle.
I was surprised. Just not a very good shooting night all around. They better be better than that when Michigan shows up this weekend.
I guess time will tell if these past two games are a blip on the MSU season or something more serious.
The ball knocked out was a gutsy but easy call for me. I believe there were visual evidence and physical science in agreement that it should go to Purdue. Reffing basketball has to be the hardest....so close to fans...coaches..playes...and did I say fans and coaches
"A couple of baskets here and there during UM's run and Purdue probably wins by 6-8 without any drama. Got to figure out how to get the ball in the hole when they are losing momentum."
Definitely agree with this. Purdue had several good looks that didn't go down both at the rim and jumpers but also at the free throw line. Purdue only shot 7 free throws in that game, but missed 3 (including Haas miss at end which kind of worked out). That said, with just those 3 points it makes it a 4 point game and we're not all having minor heart attacks when that last shot leaves Matthews' hand.
Definitely agree with this. Purdue had several good looks that didn't go down both at the rim and jumpers but also at the free throw line. Purdue only shot 7 free throws in that game, but missed 3 (including Haas miss at end which kind of worked out). That said, with just those 3 points it makes it a 4 point game and we're not all having minor heart attacks when that last shot leaves Matthews' hand.
my comments were that it was a gutsy call..but a rather easy call. There was in fact visual evidence and there was physical science evidence with both in agreement that it belongs to Purdue. The number of posts is NOT an indicator of wisdom at all...it is in fact an indicator of posts under than moniker and quite common for low post numbers to be previous people with new monikers trolling. Quantity of posts and likes are indicators of reality...not wisdom. A person can like something that may not be true...but if a lot of posts are made adn some degree of likes...those two are indicators that the post is legit...not a sign or correct thougthts or not. The time it took was to view ALL the camera views in play for to see if any would confirm either way...THAT and the amount of time to discern the correct time. My guess is trying to identify the clock took a LOT or almost all the time. I really think it was pretty obvious and if you feel different that is fine
I watch a lot of college basketball in general but a lot of teams in the Big 10 bcuz purdue plays in that league. My take on MS is this there schedule this season wasn’t particular that tough bcuz I believe Izzo learned a lesson from last year with a young team how they struggled and still being kinda young with a couple freshman coming in didn’t want to take a chance again this season getting beaten so opt to as I see it toned don his schedule. Also on paper he has talent size you name it but look at their stats of box scores not the best 3 point shooting team but a good FG shooting team. They not punking teams like they did in non conference play. Teams taking away their transition game and getting physical back with them. If you look at box scores he play maybe 5 over 25/30 min but bring off bench Matt,tum tum,goins their guards look at their scoring numbers. Than you have 3 bigs carter, Tillman and schilling look at their min last night between all 3 not many minutes or scoring from either 1 of them so he really isn’t playing all what everybody keep raving about a team on paper looks like the best team in the country but a team that has many many flaws like all teams do. What I’m saying is if you look at player for player and break down each player box score results you will see he only playing about 8 but getting consistent contributions from pretty much the same players. JJ will get foul trouble like he has practically all season bcuz he wants to block everything and not strong enough to guard bigs stronger than him. Bridges settles for mostly 3s Langford may be their best 3 point threat Winston is solid and so is Ward outside of them bench production is not as productive. Bottom line nobody in the rugged Big 10 is scared of MS bcuz teams can play just as physical as they can and exposing some of their weaknesses. Michigan will give them a challenge bcuz they spread you out and will make MS Play Defense in the half court and that is gonna slow them down and make them play how Michigan wants them to play. MS blew out Rutgers early December not enough film on MS this time they had their number and almost beat them and more teams will have their number as well.
Rutgers is a physically strong team with some size that plays D...they are just really limited on O..with maybe Williams their better shooter and Sanders the best scorer and key offensive player that makes things happen it the very little I've seen of them
Probably should let this go but just not ready to do so.
If a post count doesn't mean anything substantial then what was the purpose of the "18 posts?" at the end of your post #43 in this thread? It seemed very dismissive and arrogant to me. Obviously I am being wrong and stupid again and we all know the internet is not a model of decorum and civility. But all the passive/aggressive hostility among people who say they share a common love for Purdue University just baffles me. Add Pollyanna to my other obvious shortcomings but why does disagreement so often have to lead to aggression, belittlement and taking attitudes of superiority over people we share so much with?
I have lurked on this site for years uncounted and only recently started posting. I am a ChE 1972 whose father before me was an ME 1949. So my involvement with Purdue has truly been lifelong. I am seeing already why I waited so long to start posting. This is truly an unfriendly environment, TJR, that people like you have created. I hope you are enjoying it the way it is because you are not helping to build it into something bigger and better.
Well, as I already stated..post count is an indicator that has a relative positive relationship with trolls. If you frequent this site you should know that...and if you don't ...you should now. AS I said "if" you want to believe it was not a clear call to make...who am I to tell you that you must?
I stated that I think the visual and physical science involved support that, but said if you feel different that is fine. How you take my comments as aggression is beyond me, but you can feel that way as well. Now if you want to talk about Chemical Engineering which as a degree I have a lot of respect...I doubt you will find me in discussion of that learning. Here, you are talking basketball and I am pretty comfortable in this arena. Although I started and played football, you will not see me writing much there because I don't know as much as others in that arena.
I'm probably not the most touchy...feely person around...particularly in basketball...but that is me. I'm certainly not politically correct and have not been for probably at least 20 years I had my A$$ beat many years through school and so I have a history of just being an A$$...well and A$$ that had fun that teachers didn't think was so funny...except in private. I never even wore a helmet when my bike never had a flat tire and sometimes road in the back of pickup trucks and so I obviously missed the proper culture. My date money and gas money in high school was generated on the pool table where I again was placed in a coarse culture. Soooo, I probably say something that somebody some place finds offensive, but I really don't want to hurt anyone.
Bottom line I don't think you have cause to be so sensitive, and although I disagree with you I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
I evaluate the value of posts by the number of "likes" received. TJR has a 50% ratio of posts to "likes" that I consider pretty impressive. I would not consider that ratio indicative of a bully or someone negatively contributing to an activity.
My apologies to you are in order, i guess. No, my feelings are not hurt but I was rather p---ed off by what I thought was a snarky reference to my paltry post count, equating it with a question as to my right to be on the board. I have seen so many references to someone with a low count questioning a board regular about anything and someone's first response is to decide they must be a troll. What we need to keep in mind is anyone on this board, even those with in excess of 7K posts, say, at one point of their life only had 18 posts here. Or less. Please consider this a misunderstanding on my part and forgive me for same. I do have the occasional day (as my wife would affirm) when I am somewhat touchy and this was apparently one of those days.
Let us move on, as TREED might say.
I have absolutely no hard feelings against you or anyone on this forum...NONE. I started twice. Who knows how many posts I had years ago and then stayed off for a while and forgot my password and so I too started over.
