Some thoughts on the Game

by HE HATE ME on Mar 7, 2008 2:59 AM PST

I was just thinking about the game and I realized something. The critics that claim UCLA offense does not exist, really are not watching UCLA basketball. Sure the 18 points in the first half was abominable, definitely, not pretty to watch, but it was also an aberration. Stanford played great defense in that half. But in the second half UCLA exploded for 45 points and in the OT scored 14 points in the last 3 minutes of the OT period. Stanford and UCLA both went cold for the first 2 minutes of the OT period, but Stanford stayed cold. UCLA scored 14 points in about 3 minutes. That is not a team that lacks offense or doesn't have any offense. It was a tough win and we pulled it out.

Note: I believe that Collison was not fouled on that last play in the 2nd half and if any Stanford fan reads this, you were hosed on that call. However, blown calls are a part of sports and it is what it is. Personally, I felt both teams were hosed on a lot of calls throughout the night. It was a shame that the refs made the call, but its a part of the game.

Here's to hoping we hang up banner #12 this year.

Peace

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Just rewatched the game

and I like to think of the foul call at the end of regulation as a karmic make up for one of the worst no calls I've seen in a long time. No, not the charge on the previous play, the missed double-dribble call when we were staging one of our many second half comebacks. One of the Furd guards looked like he was playing in a junior high girls' game with a blatant doubl-dribble right in front of the ref who was apparently looking off ball at the time. Stanford hit a run-stopping deuce immediately after the no-call. This of course is just one of many questionable calls/no calls that occured throughout the course of the game. I hope that the trees and the MSM can get past the desire to hang the outcome of the game on the late-game foul.

by Pyrrhus on Mar 7, 2008 3:24 AM PST reply actions

I also saw the no call on the charge against KL

Much was said right after the Fox broadcast about the bad foul call on Collison and Doug Gotlieb also hasn't gotten over it on ESPN's Around the rim article.

{div class="blockquote"}The game only went to overtime on a terrible foul call on Lawrence Hill as he blocked Darren Collison's drive with 2.5 seconds remaining. In addition to the ludicrous call, there was an intentional foul called on Stanford, which made the overtime a lock for the Bruins.{/div}
{p}

Take it easy Doug, there where many bad calls against both teams all game long. IMO they even out at the end. Stanford played a great game and deserved to win, but we weren't given anything. We Earned it.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Mar 7, 2008 8:41 AM PST up reply actions

Heaven forbid

an intentional foul is called when the Stanford player lowered his shoulder into Westbrook intentionally.

by Raisin on Mar 7, 2008 9:54 AM PST up reply actions

The double dribble no call

That was as bad a no-call as I've seen in recent history. Of course, after he did it, he immediately found Hill, who swished an open 17 footer.

In the first half of loss to Texas, Connor Atchley stepped on the baseline (half of his considerable sneaker was over the line), nothing was called and Texas got a bucket. When that happened, I said "we better not lose by 2 points" (which we did). The double dribble gave me deja vu, and not the good kind.

I re-watched the no call on Hill's last shot, and I think the no call was the right call. If you look at it in slow motion, Love was touched, but Hill was in control, going straight up and to the side of Love, and Love appeared to me like he flopped. The contact seemed incidental at best.

I agree that the Hill did make contact with Collison's body (in slow motion, you can see Collison's momentum stop and even slightly reverse). Nonetheless, if I were officiating, I would not have called the "foul" that sent Collison to the line because Hill was going straight up and the contact was very minor and incidental to a clean block. However, any media who reports that it was a bad call should also report that we would have had 2.5 seconds and the ball under the basket. That is a lot of time to score from that position. We were likely to get a very good shot against a defense that would have been scared to foul us. I put our chances of scoring in that situation as better than 50-50, maybe even 75% based on how well we were focused down the stretch. For that reason, the foul call didn't cost Stanford the game, it just changed the way we got to OT.

Finally, keep in mind that Gottlieb has us ranked #1 in the country right now. He's not just trying to put us down. I think that there is a very legitimate argument that it was not a good call (not egregiously bad but still not good).

by BruinsRule on Mar 7, 2008 10:00 AM PST up reply actions

Hill's last shot

Perhaps not a charge, but he clearly traveled.

by Free the 16 on Mar 7, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions

Glad someone is giving Stanford credit

they're going to be an extremely tough out in the tourney, probably Elite 8. They are well coached, and start a ridiculous front line of two 7 footers and a 6'8" (Hill). They've only lost 3 times this year to teams not named UCLA. Stanford had more to do with our poor offensive output than our own ineptitude.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 7, 2008 8:00 AM PST reply actions

Agreed. Stanford is a TOUGH team.

I anticipate they will be in the Four, and I'm praying they're sent out East and we're out West.

Their bigs are both long and strong, thick enough and quick enough. Game could have gone either way last night, and they know how to use their bigs int andem very well. I wasn't kidding when I said they reminded me of Florida. If Hill could shoot from distance like Brewer, we might have been toast last night

Our patented immediate double-team with bigs down low was NOT working in the 1st 8 minutes, and it wasn't until we delayed our double until BLo or RLo started their dribble that we started getting some inside stops.

I think the Cardinal is going to learn from their 1st-week loss last year and come out guns blazing.

The Trees are a dangerous matchup. Major props to those guys... as long as their itnerests don't conflict with ours...

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 7, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions