It Will Be Like This the Rest of the Year

[AGEE11]

I said last week that Cal embarrassed Sirmons and the refs will get him back. The story of the USC game was the Ts on Cal, not the game and then the joke of an official was pulled from any future UK games.

His Comrades in Incompetence cannot and will not let this go.

We saw Pat Adams start it Saturday. You could see the gleam in his eye when the chance came.

Think of all the late fouls they didn't call leading up to that point. Tyler got hugged on the shot he complained about. Lee's arm getting slapped on a put back attempt, Lee's 5th foul. They swallowed the whistle on our end late, only calling the very blatant fouls.

They'll get us in other close games if they get the chance...

 

[TIE543]

Haven't I already seen this thread once? Or did I dream it

 

[jboler]

Then I recommend we...

 

[Ben101er]

I am not so sure about that. I think that since a lot of the big time media has been talking about the injustice of Cal's ejection, and now the technical on Humphries, if this continues, these guys are going to connect the dots, and start calling out the officials, and the SEC.

 

[thecatsareback#8]

Haven't I already seen this thread once? Or did I dream it

Lets find out

 

[IIIBradIII]

I am not so sure about that. I think that since a lot of the big time media has been talking about the injustice of Cal's ejection, and now the technical on Humphries, if this continues, these guys are going to connect the dots, and start calling out the officials, and the SEC.

This.

I said it already in another thread but this kind of blatant game-fixing by the officials is exactly what we need to clean up officiating. It took a whistleblower to change the NBA's officiating, and it will take a similarly impactful event to change NCAA basketball. I hope it gets worse, lots worse. These officials are just beginning to be exposed and the more they put the screws to us (and others, we're not the only ones), the more light they shine on themselves. So bring it on stripes. Bring it!

 

[Icecoldbrewdoggy]

I said last week that Cal embarrassed Sirmons and the refs will get him back. The story of the USC game was the Ts on Cal, not the game and then the joke of an official was pulled from any future UK games.

His Comrades in Incompetence cannot and will not let this go.

We saw Pat Adams start it Saturday. You could see the gleam in his eye when the chance came.

Think of all the late fouls they didn't call leading up to that point. Tyler got hugged on the shot he complained about. Lee's arm getting slapped on a put back attempt, Lee's 5th foul. They swallowed the whistle on our end late, only calling the very blatant fouls.

They'll get us in other close games if they get the chance...

I just don't get that. Seems to me that Sirmons embarrassed Cal, not the other way around.

 

[USNNFOCAT]

I said last week that Cal embarrassed Sirmons and the refs will get him back. The story of the USC game was the Ts on Cal, not the game and then the joke of an official was pulled from any future UK games.

His Comrades in Incompetence cannot and will not let this go.

We saw Pat Adams start it Saturday. You could see the gleam in his eye when the chance came.

Think of all the late fouls they didn't call leading up to that point. Tyler got hugged on the shot he complained about. Lee's arm getting slapped on a put back attempt, Lee's 5th foul. They swallowed the whistle on our end late, only calling the very blatant fouls.

They'll get us in other close games if they get the chance...

I don't think this is the case. There are certain refs that are tools, well documented, and they may have a soft spot for Cal and UK but at times there are just bad calls in any game. Refs didn't lose the game for us at A&M, rebounding did; take care of business on the boards and this is nothing more than a BS call.

 

[AGEE11]

I don't think this is the case. There are certain refs that are tools, well documented, and they may have a soft spot for Cal and UK but at times there are just bad calls in any game. Refs didn't lose the game for us at A&M, rebounding did; take care of business on the boards and this is nothing more than a BS call.

I 100% agree rebounding hurt us and cost us the game. But there are always several things that if one were changed would change the outcome.

Answer me this without considering anything else. If the T is not called do we win? No matter rebounding, Briscoe's shooting, Willis getting hurt, nothing else. If that T is not called we win.

 

[Blueaz]

I don't think this is the case. There are certain refs that are tools, well documented, and they may have a soft spot for Cal and UK but at times there are just bad calls in any game. Refs didn't lose the game for us at A&M, rebounding did; take care of business on the boards and this is nothing more than a BS call.

Sorry, I have to disagree. That call,at that time; did cost us the game

 

[Primedfor9]

How do you explain the rape whistle all year before the Sirmons incident?

 

[USNNFOCAT]

I 100% agree rebounding hurt us and cost us the game. But there are always several things that if one were changed would change the outcome.

Answer me this without considering anything else. If the T is not called do we win? No matter rebounding, Briscoe's shooting, Willis getting hurt, nothing else. If that T is not called we win.

Answer me this, if we break even on the boards, do we win? They had 22 second chance points while the "T" accounted for 2. Simple math tells me that the rebounding was the bigger culprit. Was the call BS? Absolutely! Did it come it come at a most inopportune time? Again, it most certainly did. But take away 10 points for breaking even on the boards and it is a moot point.

 

[USNNFOCAT]

Sorry, I have to disagree. That call,at that time; did cost us the game

22 second chance points, 2 points on the "T" which one had a bigger impact? Timing was terrible, as was the call, but take care of the boards and it matters not.

 

[Blueaz]

22 second chance points, 2 points on the "T" which one had a bigger impact? Timing was terrible, as was the call, but take care of the boards and it matters not.

yes...but at that point in the game; IT did cost the game...
What if the rebounds were even but they hit some lucky threes? We can play woulda, shoulda, coulda on every loss. But, that call (IMO) DID cost us this game.

 

[kats23]

22 second chance points, 2 points on the "T" which one had a bigger impact? Timing was terrible, as was the call, but take care of the boards and it matters not.

I'll agree with you. You can also say if Skal hits both free throws then UK wins the game. It's why I say one call doesn't change the outcome of a game entirely but there's no arguing without that T being called UK wins that game. UK could of performed a little better and I'm sure that's where Cal will focus the attention but man that's a bad way to end a game.

 

[Blueaz]

How do you explain the rape whistle all year before the Sirmons incident?

Not sure what you mean. If you are saying we got the majority of calls, up until then...
Yes, in some of the early games against inferior competition we did get a lot more calls...and the refs were calling "restriction of dribble movement". Since they decided we got too many calls, with the new rules...they stop calling those and we got the reputation of bigs fouling

 

[Blueaz]

I said last week that Cal embarrassed Sirmons and the refs will get him back. The story of the USC game was the Ts on Cal, not the game and then the joke of an official was pulled from any future UK games.

His Comrades in Incompetence cannot and will not let this go.

We saw Pat Adams start it Saturday. You could see the gleam in his eye when the chance came.

Think of all the late fouls they didn't call leading up to that point. Tyler got hugged on the shot he complained about. Lee's arm getting slapped on a put back attempt, Lee's 5th foul. They swallowed the whistle on our end late, only calling the very blatant fouls.

They'll get us in other close games if they get the chance...

I agree...the refs of today seem like a bunch of petty, little men

 

[Elliott Tim]

I said last week that Cal embarrassed Sirmons and the refs will get him back. The story of the USC game was the Ts on Cal, not the game and then the joke of an official was pulled from any future UK games.

His Comrades in Incompetence cannot and will not let this go.

We saw Pat Adams start it Saturday. You could see the gleam in his eye when the chance came.

Think of all the late fouls they didn't call leading up to that point. Tyler got hugged on the shot he complained about. Lee's arm getting slapped on a put back attempt, Lee's 5th foul. They swallowed the whistle on our end late, only calling the very blatant fouls.

They'll get us in other close games if they get the chance...

I'm hearing the Cal is taking chair throwing and neck chocking lessons from Knight himself.

 

[USNNFOCAT]

I'll agree with you. You can also say if Skal hits both free throws then UK wins the game. It's why I say one call doesn't change the outcome of a game entirely but there's no arguing without that T being called UK wins that game. UK could of performed a little better and I'm sure that's where Cal will focus the attention but man that's a bad way to end a game.

You might be right but there are a lot of variables that go into that and while the likelihood of a UK victory would have gone up it wasn't a sure thing. If Humphries misses both foul shots then we're up by one with plenty of time for A&M to score and possibly win the game. You will get no argument from me on whether or not it was a BS call and that the timing couldn't have been worse; rebound and all those variables go out the window. I guess we'll just agree to disagree about some aspects of the game other than the call itself.

 

[USNNFOCAT]

yes...but at that point in the game; IT did cost the game...
What if the rebounds were even but they hit some lucky threes? We can play woulda, shoulda, coulda on every loss. But, that call (IMO) DID cost us this game.

We're talking about two things, the call and rebounding. You're right there are many scenarios but there is no disputing 22 second chance points, the only woulda, shoulda, coulda in play is better rebounding in regards to that. Even if they don't call the foul, if Humphries doesn't sink both free throws A&M is one shot away from still winning. It was a bad call at a bad time, we can both agree on that.

 

[SmyrnaCatFan]

To me the more egregious foul attributed to Hump was the over-the-back call early in his playing. Isaac did not make contact with the rebounder and there was enough space between them to park a Smart Car. That foul was more erroneous than the "T".

 

[Blueaz]

We're talking about two things, the call and rebounding. You're right there are many scenarios but there is no disputing 22 second chance points, the only woulda, shoulda, coulda in play is better rebounding in regards to that. Even if they don't call the foul, if Humphries doesn't sink both free throws A&M is one shot away from still winning. It was a bad call at a bad time, we can both agree on that.

agree...

 

[JC for 3]

I doubt the refs are acting in support of Sirmons.... there have been complaints by some of those same officials after they worked with him.

 

[Teachable Moe]

I 100% agree rebounding hurt us and cost us the game. But there are always several things that if one were changed would change the outcome.

Answer me this without considering anything else. If the T is not called do we win? No matter rebounding, Briscoe's shooting, Willis getting hurt, nothing else. If that T is not called we win.

There are several scenarios where that's not true. Even if Humphries hit both FTs, UK would still only have a 3 pt lead. A 3 by aTm would tie and we'd have to go to a 2nd OT. If he hit 1, an aTm 2 would tie & an aTm 3 would win. If he missed both, a 2 would win. There were still 9 seconds left. I like our chances, but it definitely isn't the sure thing so fabled in song and story.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Answer me this, if we break even on the boards, do we win? They had 22 second chance points while the "T" accounted for 2. Simple math tells me that the rebounding was the bigger culprit. Was the call BS? Absolutely! Did it come it come at a most inopportune time? Again, it most certainly did. But take away 10 points for breaking even on the boards and it is a moot point.

The two are NOT mutually exclusive and your argument is stupid. If we shot 100% in the game we surely would've won as well. Is this a stupid argument? Yes, but so is yours. We overcame our poor rebounding by shooting well. Regardless of the rebounding totals, we still win the game is we weren't screwed by a terrible call where the action had ZERO effect on the game.

 

[USNNFOCAT]

The two are NOT mutually exclusive and your argument is stupid. If we shot 100% in the game we surely would've won as well. Is this a stupid argument? Yes, but so is yours. We overcame our poor rebounding by shooting well. Regardless of the rebounding totals, we still win the game is we weren't screwed by a terrible call where the action had ZERO effect on the game.

Stupid? Our conversation is over. I'll have a reasonable discussion on an adult level with anyone but I'm not going down the juvenile path. Have a good day.

 

[Ugoff]

These refs will do what they want when they want until someone takes action above them.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

To me the more egregious foul attributed to Hump was the over-the-back call early in his playing. Isaac did not make contact with the rebounder and there was enough space between them to park a Smart Car. That foul was more erroneous than the "T".

yup, that call was a joke, Isaac didn't even touch the guy. If that isn't made then Humphries is in there to grab that rebound off the miss instead of watching Skal flop like a fish after getting pushed out of the way.

 

[UKhoopCat]

To me the more egregious foul attributed to Hump was the over-the-back call early in his playing. Isaac did not make contact with the rebounder and there was enough space between them to park a Smart Car. That foul was more erroneous than the "T".

Exactly right. They called a foul for "over the back"...but that's only a foul when you make contact while going over the back. It was another BS call in a game full of BS calls.

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

Its called life on the road for Kentucky.

Nothing to see here people.

 

[Primedfor9]

Not sure what you mean. If you are saying we got the majority of calls, up until then...
Yes, in some of the early games against inferior competition we did get a lot more calls...and the refs were calling "restriction of dribble movement". Since they decided we got too many calls, with the new rules...they stop calling those and we got the reputation of bigs fouling

Not saying we got the majority of calls at all, the opposite. On the road we're getting screwed more than any team I've ever seen. Before this year the only time I'd ever complained about officiating is at UNC a couple years ago and at Arkansas when they won with the qualls put back dunk.

 

[Smashcat]

I am not so sure about that. I think that since a lot of the big time media has been talking about the injustice of Cal's ejection, and now the technical on Humphries, if this continues, these guys are going to connect the dots, and start calling out the officials, and the SEC.

Vanderbilt will be a good test.

 

[Ben101er]

To me the more egregious foul attributed to Hump was the over-the-back call early in his playing. Isaac did not make contact with the rebounder and there was enough space between them to park a Smart Car. That foul was more erroneous than the "T".

This is what I said in an earlier thread. Even though I thought the call by Adams was very poor judgment, he had already done most of his damage in the previous 44 minutes.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

Just an FYI....Sirmons called a double technical in the KU vs KSU game on Sat. night. That guy is on a mission to win a title of his own.

 

[AGEE11]

Answer me this, if we break even on the boards, do we win? They had 22 second chance points while the "T" accounted for 2. Simple math tells me that the rebounding was the bigger culprit. Was the call BS? Absolutely! Did it come it come at a most inopportune time? Again, it most certainly did. But take away 10 points for breaking even on the boards and it is a moot point.

Oh, I agree rebounding would have changed the outcome at a point spread more than the call.

I'm just saying he doesn't make that BS, we are up 2, shooting 2 free throws with 9 seconds to go. Almost a guaranteed W.

My overall point is, that Pat Adams truly did cost us that game. Rebounding better wouldn't have gave him that chance, but he had the chance and used it.

 

[Blueaz]

Not saying we got the majority of calls at all, the opposite. On the road we're getting screwed more than any team I've ever seen. Before this year the only time I'd ever complained about officiating is at UNC a couple years ago and at Arkansas when they won with the qualls put back dunk.

my bad...poor interpretation

 

[USNNFOCAT]

Oh, I agree rebounding would have changed the outcome at a point spread more than the call.

I'm just saying he doesn't make that BS, we are up 2, shooting 2 free throws with 9 seconds to go. Almost a guaranteed W.

My overall point is, that Pat Adams truly did cost us that game. Rebounding better wouldn't have gave him that chance, but he had the chance and used it.

Yes he did and it was a BS call, no doubt about that.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

I can't understand why the SEC doesn't realize such poor officiating is hurting the conference itself? The explanation can only be a.) they don't care or b.) they are so dim they can't see it. So, which is more likely?

 

[acatnamedmyra]

Let me say this to all those who say "rebounding cost us the game". I don't believe you can change a stat after the game and conclude the outcome would have been different. Everytime anything happens on the court the dynamic is changed. Make a shot, miss a shot, both teams react to what happened. If we rebound better, they play harder, or not...you can't change a stat after the fact and automatically conclude it would change the outcome. At least in my opinion. Without the T we probably win, but not necessarily.

 

[USNNFOCAT]

Let me say this to all those who say "rebounding cost us the game". I don't believe you can change a stat after the game and conclude the outcome would have been different. Everytime anything happens on the court the dynamic is changed. Make a shot, miss a shot, both teams react to what happened. If we rebound better, they play harder, or not...you can't change a stat after the fact and automatically conclude it would change the outcome. At least in my opinion. Without the T we probably win, but not necessarily.

And you can a foul? Isn't it a stat as well? One is as set in stone as the other. Rebounding is fundamental basketball, we did it in the 2nd half, and A&M got 22 second chance points during the game as a result. You eliminate just 3 of those and we win even with the technical. The problem with the "T" cost us the game is that if it wasn't called UK doesn't automatically win the game, as you point out. If Humphries makes only one or misses both FT's then A&M can still win the game on one shot. The call was BS but we had no control over that but, as demonstrated in the 2nd half, we can control whether or not we play fundamental basketball. UK played good enough to win and although there are no good losses, KY will be better in the end for games like this one and the one in KS.