Matt's post game show comments.

[Oldbluefart]

Going to post this again: "More games are lost than won" Yoggi Berra.
Texas Am did not win that game, UK lost it.
The "IF' game can go on and on.
No matter how many "if we did this, if this player does this, if this guy doesn't foul out, if this guy doesn't get hurt we do, it wont change a thing.

The thing that hurts is throw all the "what if's" out and we still had the game won with foul trouble, injuries, lack of rebounding, short handed, and the outcome was decided by a ref.
If you call a foul on that play, then when a player dunks and makes a pose, or gets up and beats his chest, why not call that celebrating?

That play did not have any affect on the game, the ref making a call on that play did affect the game.
OK, here is a big IF for you; almost any good ref or fan would know that with the clock running down, a team rebounds the ball with a few seconds left almost always call time out. You tell me with three refs not one of them was expecting a time out and not looking for it?

Finally, that big dude that was popping his mouth off to Humphries afterwards thanking him, you better hope your team chokes and you don't have to face this man again you punk a**.

 

[awf]

Yeah but I'm way more concerned with future games.

That crazy call isn't gonna happen rest of the season. Least I would hope not.

We can't ignore why the game was that close to even begin with.

It is the second time in three games we have gotten that call. What makes you think these stupid refs won't make more retarded calls like this?

 

[awf]

I've already explained it but you don't like that answer because it messes up your agenda , shut up and address how they called a T on the usc player without that being specifically in the rule . Humpries made a selfish play and got called for it .

If you think that Humpries made a selfish play then you are jaded against UK.

 

[kyjeff1]

How many offensive rebounds did TAMU have in the second half of the game? According to the article I just read, they finished with 18. At half, we had the lead and they had 15 according to one source and 14 according to another.

If Isaac doesn't foul out, he is in the game for the final play. Bottomline is that when you look at the facts, we didn't lose because of the rebounds but they were a factor.

We lost because we had at least 4 things going against us:
-The T on Hump
-The offensive rebounds we gave up
-Briscoe taking ill advised shots
-Willis out (not able to spread the floor as much)

Fix any of those and it's a W. So you can point to any of those 4 things and say that was the reason. So if someone wants to say offensive rebounds lost us the game they would be right.

 

[whhs22]

Xception obviously you have never played in competitive sports. Im sure you were happy playing in that league set up by all the moms with awkward sons could get a trophy for doing nothing.

What Hump did was not selfish. Foolish maybe. But not selfish. The young man was caught up in the moment and excited that he had put his team in a position to win. Thats not selfish. If you can't see that then you have never competed on any level. As a competitor you can see the difference in a teammate playing selfish, and a teammate who is busting his but to help the team win over his own accomplishments. Hump was 100% trying to win not bring attention to his personal accomplishments. Huge difference.

 

[turkeywildturkey]

Says that was the correct call by ref.
says we lost the game by the rebound deficit.

I say otherwise. We lost the game because we did not shoot as well in the second half and AM made shots. Of course the referring played a factor in the game.
The reason I say the rebounding was not the reason why we lost is because most all the big board deficits was in the 1st half. We won the first half.
We had a long drought and AM got hot and went on a 11-2 run. We did not shoot as well in the second half and that was the major reason why the game was on the line in the second half.
Hit shots and you win, that's the point of the game.

I've played hundreds of games and not one time did I see a T called on slamming the ball down the way Humphries did it. I've now seen 2 this year and both on UK one on Briscoe against SC and now this game. I've seen T's cussin the ref or talking smack though.

How many times have you seen a guy take the ball with 2 hands after a whistle is blown and slams ball real hard on floor with it bouncing back up in his hands.
I've seen guys throw the ball up in the air with a second left and no T all the time in today's game.
What Happened is not in the rule book.

To me this was clearly a biased call and it was a travesty to our guys who played their hearts out clawing back into the lead.

You're wrong and he's right. Look at the shooting percentages. We shot much better than they did. We did not execute at the end. They did. Murray hits his shot, Skal makes his second free throw, or we don't give up offensive rebound at the end, we win. Plain and simple.

 

[The_Answer1313]

It is the second time in three games we have gotten that call. What makes you think these stupid refs won't make more retarded calls like this?

The poster I replied to said that we lost the game because of rebounding....period. I agree with you that it was a factor. But, we offset that factor with a high shooting percentage. Plus, at the end of the game, the rebounds were 37 to 33, if I am reading that right from ESPN.

We shot 50% and they shot 39%. This was clearly a game that was simply even. The deciding factor in this game came down to a few plays at the end. The ONLY play that had nothing to do with the game itself was the T. That is why the T was such a BIG factor.

While the rebounding difference was only 4, we missed 27 shots, they missed 44.

We only got 6 of 27 for 22%
They got 20 of 44......40%

That was a huge difference

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

Even the rebounding deficit was referee influenced: easy to offensive rebound when you're allowed to climb the back of or shove out of the way the defensive player who's got inside position

The T on Isaac was just the 2nd to last (the ignored travel on a/m's last possession was last) among many hose job calls we got last night.

 

[Zakk Wyldcat]

Unfortunate they knew who to foul.

Wouldn't have been anyone to foul had the three blind dopes called the obvious walk on A&M. Then we have the ball and the last shot. Chalk up another missed call by incompetent officials.

 

[Bigblueforever]

Says that was the correct call by ref.
says we lost the game by the rebound deficit.

I say otherwise. We lost the game because we did not shoot as well in the second half and AM made shots. Of course the referring played a factor in the game.
The reason I say the rebounding was not the reason why we lost is because most all the big board deficits was in the 1st half. We won the first half.
We had a long drought and AM got hot and went on a 11-2 run. We did not shoot as well in the second half and that was the major reason why the game was on the line in the second half.
Hit shots and you win, that's the point of the game.

I've played hundreds of games and not one time did I see a T called on slamming the ball down the way Humphries did it. I've now seen 2 this year and both on UK one on Briscoe against SC and now this game. I've seen T's cussin the ref or talking smack though.

How many times have you seen a guy take the ball with 2 hands after a whistle is blown and slams ball real hard on floor with it bouncing back up in his hands.
I've seen guys throw the ball up in the air with a second left and no T all the time in today's game.
What Happened is not in the rule book.

To me this was clearly a biased call and it was a travesty to our guys who played their hearts out clawing back into the lead.

Agreed!!!

 

[WildMoon]

Even Jeff Goodman said that was bad call.

Even other refs said that was bad call...

 

[The_Answer1313]

Even the rebounding deficit was referee influenced: easy to offensive rebound when you're allowed to climb the back of or shove out of the way the defensive player who's got inside position

The T on Isaac was just the 2nd to last (the ignored travel on a/m's last possession was last) among many hose job calls we got last night.

No what influenced it was not have Alex and then later in the game not having Willis

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

No what influenced it was not have Alex and then later in the game not having Willis

Wrong answer; Alex would've helped, but not as much as a consistent over the back whistle. And Derek had 1 rebound inthe 20 minutes he played. I don't like the odds of the 2nd rebound he would've been projected to grab in 40 minutes being the one that would've "sealed" the deal.

 

[UKgreatinmyveins]

Bama.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Wrong answer; Alex would've helped, but not as much as a consistent over the back whistle. And Derek had 1 rebound inthe 20 minutes he played. I don't like the odds of the 2nd rebound he would've been projected to grab in 40 minutes being the one that would've "sealed" the deal.

Alex is the best defensive rebounder on the team. Texas A&M is a really good offensive rebounding team.

If you don't think the majority of this was due to having him and Willis out I don't know what to say

 

[Macy 4]

The UK bigs are not allowed to play aggressive and go after rebounds. They are either fouled out or in foul trouble late in the game. Despite being dominated on the boards we were leading the game at the time of the technical.

 

[Blueisbest]

I was very proud of the way Humphries played last night. We are going to need more of that going forward because we now know what we are getting out of Skal (not much), Lee (too foul prone), and with Alex being up in the air on when we will see him play again. Also, we don't know what the status on Willis is going forward. If he is unable to go then Isaac needs to start on Tuesday.

 

[ukalum]

It is the second time in three games we have gotten that call. What makes you think these stupid refs won't make more retarded calls like this?

Why is it the second time in three games that UK got that call? Did they not learn the first time?

 

[yoshukai]

Again, I think everyone is in violent agreement on that point. Fact remains is that the referee acted within his discretion, regardless of how poor it was.

You know nothing!

 

[Xception]

If you think that Humpries made a selfish play then you are jaded against UK.

I get called a homer , Cal worshipper and pretty much any slander that's positive all the time because my posts are favorable towards the coaches , team and players . Now I'm jaded because I called a player out for his actions , I don't group think just because I didn't like the outcome . If it had been a player that people like to complain about then everyone would go off but Hump is a favorite , disgusting that people like you do that . If Briscoe did that it would be a completely different reaction , I would call it selfish no matter who it is .

 

[The_Answer1313]

The UK bigs are not allowed to play aggressive and go after rebounds. They are either fouled out or in foul trouble late in the game. Despite being dominated on the boards we were leading the game at the time of the technical.

Not allowed?

And they fouled because they have trouble playing defense without fouling.

We have this same problem game after game.

 

[crawfords corner]

Was UK winning the game despite the bad rebounding when that Technical happened? Yes. Therefore, all the bad rebounding beforehand had been overcome. If the right decision is made by that ref it's likely that rebound putback at worst ties the game.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Was UK winning the game despite the bad rebounding when that Technical happened? Yes. Therefore, all the bad rebounding beforehand had been overcome. If the right decision is made by that ref it's likely that rebound putback at worst ties the game.

Yes it was overcome but had we done our jobs on the boards it wouldn't have been just overcome, it would have resulted in a big lead of us.

That game never should have gone to OT in the first place.

 

[Xception]

Xception obviously you have never played in competitive sports. Im sure you were happy playing in that league set up by all the moms with awkward sons could get a trophy for doing nothing.

What Hump did was not selfish. Foolish maybe. But not selfish. The young man was caught up in the moment and excited that he had put his team in a position to win. Thats not selfish. If you can't see that then you have never competed on any level. As a competitor you can see the difference in a teammate playing selfish, and a teammate who is busting his but to help the team win over his own accomplishments. Hump was 100% trying to win not bring attention to his personal accomplishments. Huge difference.

You said I was going on ignore , can't deprive yourself , I understand . I'm glad you're taking more time on your posts , seeing improvement .

 

[Aike]

No, the call shouldn't have been made but it was and we were down 1 after they hit their free throws. Skal hit 1 to tie and missed his second free throw. Had he hit his second free throw we only have a 1 point lead. Saying the T shouldn't have been called has no bearing on this particular discussion. UK78 said "we would have won if Skal made both free throws" and that's not true at all. We would have lost by 1 instead of 2.
Now if uk78 had said "Skal should have held his position at the very end and got the rebound than he would have a point.

You can't know this either. There's no way of knowing if A&M would have made the same play had they been trailing that they made with the game tied.

Lot more pressure taking the last shot when a miss equals a loss. Because of the consequences of the T, aTm was playing with house money.

 

[wldktz8]

We lost the game because of rebounds....... Period

Since when did rebounds start counting for points?

 

[awf]

Why is it the second time in three games that UK got that call? Did they not learn the first time?

Two completely different situations. Briscoe's T was because he slammed the ball out of frustration, the Bid Aussie's T was awarded because of jubilation.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Since when did rebounds start counting for points?

Offensive rebounds lead to points and most of the time easy points.

This has been a HUGE part of our offense since Cal has gotten here.

 

[awf]

I get called a homer , Cal worshipper and pretty much any slander that's positive all the time because my posts are favorable towards the coaches , team and players . Now I'm jaded because I called a player out for his actions , I don't group think just because I didn't like the outcome . If it had been a player that people like to complain about then everyone would go off but Hump is a favorite , disgusting that people like you do that . If Briscoe did that it would be a completely different reaction , I would call it selfish no matter who it is .

So I guess we can agree then that you are unreasonable idiot? If you think his actions were selfish then I stand by my comment. You know I could really care less about your previous post. You are wrong in this one.

 

[UK till Death]

You said I was going on ignore , can't deprive yourself , I understand . I'm glad you're taking more time on your posts , seeing improvement .

Putting a space before and after every comma and period is improper English and makes your poor posts look even dumber.

Did you graduate high school?

Also, just a few more posts and you'll have everyone convinced. Keep going.

 

[Chuckinden]

Since when did rebounds start counting for points?

It's called second chance points which A&M had quite a lot.

 

[Xception]

So I guess we can agree then that you are unreasonable idiot? If you think his actions were selfish then I stand by my comment. You know I could really care less about your previous post. You are wrong in this one.

An angry fella that coddles selective players , don't forget it was a stupid play too .

 

[Xception]

Putting a space before and after every comma and period is improper English and makes your poor posts look even dumber.

Did you graduate high school?

Also, just a few more posts and you'll have everyone convinced. Keep going.

Tornado season is coming , stay alert .

 

[moe#8]

Matt is correct. The rule is the rule. I wouldn't have called it, I would have warned him. But, the conditions for the call had been met.

Bass, from what I have learned on here it is not a rule.

 

[preacherfan]

Again, I think everyone is in violent agreement on that point. Fact remains is that the referee acted within his discretion, regardless of how poor it was.

Okay, but the referee can use his "discretion" to give a T to anyone for almost any show of emotion. Coaches would be ejected during almost every game if refs just threw out T's because they could. They would be T'd up for questioning any and all calls, getting out of the coaching box, etc Players would be disqualified for flashing the 3 sign, doing the chicken dance, screaming when they dunk, flexing, gyrating, etc.

All I want is some common sense and spirit of the law running the show and not an idiot like Pat Adams. We don't need Inspector Javert officiating bball games.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I agree. All we want as fans is for the officials to be consistent.

FWIW he does seem to be quick with his T's..........they T'd up the A&M coach when he probably didn't have to as well

 

[kyjeff1]

You can't know this either. There's no way of knowing if A&M would have made the same play had they been trailing that they made with the game tied.

Lot more pressure taking the last shot when a miss equals a loss. Because of the consequences of the T, aTm was playing with house money.

But what we do know is we WOULD have been up by one and aTm was going to at least attempt a shot at the basket.
There is no guarantee we would have won with a 1 point lead there. A&M ran a play they are confident in to win it, than they got the rebound and a putback which is something the did all game long.

 

[Aike]

But what we do know is we WOULD have been up by one and aTm was going to at least attempt a shot at the basket.
There is no guarantee we would have won with a 1 point lead there. A&M ran a play they are confident in to win it, than they got the rebound and a putback which is something the did all game long.

I never guaranteed we would have won. You said we would have lost.

No way either of us could know what would have happened.

 

[kyjeff1]

I never guaranteed we would have won. You said we would have lost.

No way either of us could know what would have happened.

Agreed.
All I know is aTm made a bucket at the buzzer. Had Skal made his second free throw we still lose by a point. It's all we have to go on.

 

[Boneheadblue]

We lost the game because of rebounds....... Period

If we lost on rebounds, then why were we in the lead until the t was called? Period