Video Review
In the comments for my previous post regarding yesterday’s Cal-UCLA men’s basketball game, a poster linked to this photo:
[Photo Hosting Isn’t Working, but the photo was of a ref in UCLA shorts dunking on a Cal player with the caption "UCLA: Team Of Destiny"]
Now, I doubt strongly that that is the first time such a photoshop has been created. However, it was pretty funny and we all need funny things after a game like yesterday.
But the photoshop reflects the views of many Cal fans that think the team was screwed. In regards to Josh Shipp’s shot, I wrote about my views in the post below. To recap, it appears that the shot was illegal. In regards to the foul on Anderson, I noted that ABC never showed a single shot of the actual exchange.
Many Cal fans probably felt that this was because it showed how blatant a non-call that was. That is what I was thinking. ABC showed a replay about halfway into the exchange as the ball was rolling out of bounds, which was essentially useless.
So, we just all assumed that Anderson was gang-raped and went on our merry/bitter little way. Well, a mod called Telemachus over at BruinsNation posted up the video in his most recent post. Here is the direct link to the video (caution: it takes a while to load). The video is in slow motion so you can get the best possible view of whether or not Anderson was fouled.
We here at the California Golden Blogs do the dirty work you don’t have to. We watched this video. Over and over and over again. Hoping to see those damnable Bruins hogtie up Anderson and roll the ball out of bounds as the refs received millions of dollars in cash money from Bill Walton. Hoping to see something. Anything.
Well……………….and this is not what the Cal fans are not going to want to hear, but it actually looks clean. I know I know! The refs. Screwed Cal. No hope. Braun not at fault.
It goes down like this. Player #0, Russell Westbrook, comes towards Anderson from behind. He drapes his left hand over the back of Anderson. However, this is done with the gentlest of care, as if Westbrook and Anderson were in a committed monogamous relationship. Then, Westbrook slaps vertically down upon the ball and it looks like ONLY the ball. Then, Anderson falls to the ground as the ball bounces off his knee.
Now, here is where it gets a bit tricky. Even though its in slo mo and HD, it is tough to make out what happens next exactly. Westbrook clearly bounces the ball once, trying to recover it. It looks like Anderson then punches the ball out of bounds as he falls forward. I cannot tell if Westbrook in any way touches the ball also at this point. Another Bruins player comes over, but it does not appear as if he touches the ball. I have watched that section of the video innumerable times in both the side and front angle, but it is still a bit unclear. If you stuck a gun to my head and asked my opinion, I’d have to say that it looks like Anderson was the last player to touch the ball.
What this means is that the refs might have gotten it totally correct. From the video, it appears that the non-call on the foul was correct. And it looks reasonably certain that it was Bruins ball. I hate to have to say this. But I’m just trying to be objective and reasonable about it.
I still think that Shipp’s shot was apparently illegal and should have been waived off. I also still think Cal would have nonetheless found a creative and exciting way to lose the game. I mean c’mon.
For all you Cal Bears fans who are depressed just think, it could be worse. We could have gone 0-18 in the Pac10. So, at least there’s not that! GO BEARS!
Alright, I agree it pretty much looks like there wasn’t a foul and it *somewhat* looks like Anderson is the last person to touch the ball. But that doesn’t excuse the worst call of the night: the Shipp shot. That was QUITE OBVIOUSLY OVER THE BACKBOARD. Of the three calls debatable calls at the end of the game (the foul, the out of bounds call, and the Shipp shot), the Shipp shot should have been waived. Shots like that should be subject to instant replay review. Oh, and what about Shipp punching the ball out of bounds too? I hear that’s illegal too. Shouldn’t there be a penalty shots or something? Maybe the refs got the first two calls right (the no-foul, and out on Anderson), but they sure as hell screwed up the last two calls (Shipp shot, and Shipp punch).
Comment by HydroTech — March 9, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
What’s the definition of a foul? It still looks as if there was contact made with Anderson.
Moreso, maybe the ref got the call right… why the hell was it not reviewed during the game?
Comment by Rishi — March 10, 2008 @ 1:10 am
Rishi,
Because fouls are in a large part judgment calls, the refs never review such calls. I mean, once you start reviewing one play to see if it was a foul, you start having to review them all — and even if it got more calls right, you’d slow the pace down so much that it’d be a much worse game.
I’m don’t know what the rules might be, but I only recall review being used on clock issues and certain situations where the refs are in disagreement about what happened (and maybe once in a while to see who threw the first punch).
Comment by ragnarok — March 10, 2008 @ 8:02 am
An argument that I have seen made is that:
a)Howland clearly called for a foul
b)Westbrook was clearly going initially for a foul
c)As such, a foul should have been called.
I, nonetheless, do not think that Intent To Foul is the necessary prerequisite for a foul to be called. Even if Westbrook intended to foul, I don’t think he ever did. His left hand did touch Anderson, but very weakly. And his right hand hit clean ball.
So, as far as that argument is concerned, I don’t think it is a valid one.
Comment by TwistNHook — March 10, 2008 @ 8:05 am
I agree with Twist, intent to foul is not the necessary prerequisite for a foul to be called.
Comment by HydroTech — March 10, 2008 @ 8:16 am
Not to mention, in that instance the intent is almost always to force a turnover, with the caveat that a foul is still a preferable result. If the intent had been merely to foul, he could have just grabbed him around waist or held his arm. Usually the guy is going for a steal, but doing so in such a way that if he can’t get the ball cleanly, he’ll at least get called for the foul.
Comment by Seitz — March 10, 2008 @ 10:37 am
I appreciate the candor and I agree that there there is definitely nothing conclusive from that angle. I will admit that Shipp’s shot looked pretty over the backboard to me and should have probably been called, though it really was close.
Really dig this blog, btw.
Comment by BlackJack — March 10, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
regarding punching the ball out of bounds, yes, it is illegal, but i believe it just means Cal should have been awarded the ball when it was punched (it essentially is the same “penalty” as if Shipp had intentionally kicked the ball)– thus no penalty shot(s)
. But yes, the refs definitely messed that call up…there should have been more time on the clock for Cal’s last possession.
Comment by bruinfan — March 10, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
I like the humility and candor expressed by the bruins that have visited our blog. Twist was big enough to admit that a no-call on Anderson looks correct. A couple bruins admitted that the shot was illegal and ship’s punch should have favored cal more, and I’ll bet others would concede that a tech should have been called when the ucla bench/fans spilled onto the court.
Ucla won. Should a foul have been called on Westbrook? Probably not. Was the final shot illegal? Yes. Did ucla catch huge breaks on Shipp’s punch/people on the court? Yes. Would Cal have won if not for missed calls at the end? Almost definitely.
Are the bruins visiting our site acting very reasonable given what transpired? A resounding yes. Thanks for your class.
Comment by CBKWit — March 10, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
As to the legality of the shot, the La Times wrote:
According to Hank Nichols, the NCAA’s national coordinator of men’s officiating, the rule is often referred to as the Wilt Chamberlain rule because its original intent was to prevent a team from lobbing the ball over the backboard to an immensely tall and talented player because the play couldn’t be defended. “The intent wasn’t to stop a circus jump shot,” Nichols said.
There in fact is a video posted by B..B over at bruinzone of a similar play, albeit more incredible, of an Oregon player making a shot while falling out of bounds to tie the game and send it to OT. It was ruled good. If you youtube Kobe backboard bank, there is one of Kobe making a similar shot but this one banks off the corner before going in. Wade also makes one that actually bounces off the top of the backboard before going in.
In the video Stu Nahan(RIP) says, “there was an unbelievable from behind the basket bucket by Oregon’s Greg Trapp and it came at the buzzer.”
You’d think they would make a definitive rule about this after it happening before especially in the Pac-10.
Comment by the.dude.abides — March 10, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
Sorry sirs. Putting your hands on the back and reaching over another player is a foul. Look how the shirt moves and the number on the jersey gets stretched.
Comment by RuleBook — March 12, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Cal Football Spring Links and BlogLove
Click to continue reading “”
Share This
…
Trackback by Bears Necessity — March 17, 2008 @ 7:34 pm