In Game: at Richmond
Re: In Game: at Richmond
Dang!
Re: In Game: at Richmond
I don't know how many ways there are to lose close games, but we seem to keep finding them.
Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin
Re: In Game: at Richmond
Huffman foul was somehow worse than the late officiating
lovin' every minute of it
-
- Posts: 3206
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:15 pm
- Location: Raleigh,NC
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: In Game: at Richmond
The play was legal so not sure why you “can’t make that play.” Hand to hand contact is legal. King kicked his leg out, which is an offensive foul, if anything is to be called. And if Grant hadn’t closed out hard and king makes the shot, you’d have been the first to call out the “lack of effort” or “have to be in the shooter’s face.”
So what is the play he can make other than to not get called for a foul he didn’t commit?
Re: In Game: at Richmond
Ticky tack foul by Grant. What ever happened to the over arching rule that officials let the players decide game outcome. Grant’s contact had no effect whatsoever on the shot attempt. Disgraceful.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for men of good will to do nothing. Eddie Burke
Esse Quam Videri
Esse Quam Videri
Re: In Game: at Richmond
chucking 3s at a 27% clip won't get the job done.
"Statistics are like bikinis. They show a lot, but they don't show everything." - Bob McKillop
-
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:58 pm
Re: In Game: at Richmond
It's just typical Stan. Come on the messageboard for the season, be super negative about every play and pretend he is super coach. We see it every year.Owfitzpatrick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 8:19 pm
The play was legal so not sure why you “can’t make that play.” Hand to hand contact is legal. King kicked his leg out, which is an offensive foul, if anything is to be called. And if Grant hadn’t closed out hard and king makes the shot, you’d have been the first to call out the “lack of effort” or “have to be in the shooter’s face.”
So what is the play he can make other than to not get called for a foul he didn’t commit?
Re: In Game: at Richmond
I am what must be the Richmond gathering spot.
Had a nice chat with Neal Quinn, and his dad bought me a beer.
Last year I had my lunch paid for by a VCU fan.
Talked to Mooney as well.
Had a nice chat with Neal Quinn, and his dad bought me a beer.
Last year I had my lunch paid for by a VCU fan.
Talked to Mooney as well.
- DC69Wildcat
- Posts: 9443
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: Concord, NC
Re: In Game: at Richmond
The replay is up on ESPN+. I just looked at the foul call against Grant, and I don't think the ref called the hand contact, which was very minor, if any. Grant jumped towards King, and when he landed, his right foot was under King's landing spot. I thought initially that King had flopped, but after looking at it several times, I think he came down on Grant's foot. I am much more bothered by the awful call against Brizzi when he stole the pass to Quinn. That was a clean steal. The ref on the end line called it, not the ref closest to the play. Quinn made both of the foul shots. And then there was the very obvious foul that was missed when Quinn went over Kochera's back to knock a loose ball off Connor's leg. At least Richmond didn't get any points out of that one. And lastly, I think the charge call against Connor on his baseline drive was bogus. It's debatable until the final replay comes up, and in that view, Bailey is still moving laterally and his right foot is still dragging along the floor when Connor collides with him. It's a close call, but I think it was a block.
Having said that, the refs didn't cost us the game. Even with those questionable calls, we defended well enough to win, we rebounded well enough to win, we scored in the paint well enough to win, and although Grant's two misses came at a most inopportune time, we shot free throws well enough to win. Once again, what we didn't do was shoot the three ball well enough to win. We missed too many wide open looks.
Having said that, the refs didn't cost us the game. Even with those questionable calls, we defended well enough to win, we rebounded well enough to win, we scored in the paint well enough to win, and although Grant's two misses came at a most inopportune time, we shot free throws well enough to win. Once again, what we didn't do was shoot the three ball well enough to win. We missed too many wide open looks.
"We were in the center ring the whole night,'' longtime Davidson coach Bob McKillop said. ''We were not on the ropes. We were not on the mat. We were in the center ring slugging away, and we just ran out of time.''
Re: In Game: at Richmond
We suck!! He better recruit and get admissions to get over them selves…Bball is our calling card!!
Re: In Game: at Richmond
Like it or not, Stan is right. Bad play by Grant, great play by King. It was a foul.TiredCat88 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 8:48 pmIt's just typical Stan. Come on the messageboard for the season, be super negative about every play and pretend he is super coach. We see it every year.Owfitzpatrick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 8:19 pm
The play was legal so not sure why you “can’t make that play.” Hand to hand contact is legal. King kicked his leg out, which is an offensive foul, if anything is to be called. And if Grant hadn’t closed out hard and king makes the shot, you’d have been the first to call out the “lack of effort” or “have to be in the shooter’s face.”
So what is the play he can make other than to not get called for a foul he didn’t commit?
"Here’s what is the elephant in the room. Travis had a bag before. Now everyone has a bag. The Travis Ford recruiting prowess was greatly exaggerated."---SLU fan explaining how NIL took away Ford's recruiting edge
Re: In Game: at Richmond
Whenever you lunge at a 3 point shooter, you are begging for a whistle. Have to 'stay vertical".
Yes, the charge call on Kochera was total BS.
Yes, the charge call on Kochera was total BS.
"Statistics are like bikinis. They show a lot, but they don't show everything." - Bob McKillop