NY Post: Pac-10 refs cost St. John's against UCLA

New York Post sportswriter thinks the refs were biased against Big East-style play, conveniently forgets the 47 hacks against Josh Smith that weren't called.

over 1 year ago wendywestwood 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

morons

If they watched that game they’d know every single foul was justified that was called against the Johnnies. They were huge hackers playing a really ugly game. The amount of times they would reach and bump was unbelievable. Any conference would those.

by maccabita4life on Feb 7, 2011 1:33 PM PST reply actions

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Total fouls was something like 23 to 17. I guess the Bruins were fouled almost exclusively in the act of shooting, which seems about right considering how we were pounding it inside.

I can think of 3 calls that went in the Johnnies’ favor, including the Josh Smith trip, the Zeek “elbow” call at midcourt, and Zeek’s foul in the last few minutes where he was trapped and hacked and the Johnnies got the call.

by orlandobruin on Feb 7, 2011 1:43 PM PST reply actions

There was another one that went "their way"

the hack on Smith that was called out of bounds ( we all heard the smack from the foul on tv) that led to Nelson’s 3pt shot.

by Chris09 on Feb 7, 2011 1:58 PM PST up reply actions

Ridiculous

It wasn;t like a bunch of t ouch fouls were being called. They were hacking us everytime we got near the hoop.

UCLA '08

by BruinTrouble on Feb 7, 2011 2:03 PM PST reply actions

It's the NY Post

aka the NY We’ll Print Whatever Gets People to Pick Up Our Rag. That was a joke of an article too, no X’s and O’s analysis in that post of specific plays or of specific patterns. I think one of the comments on the NY Post website nailed it perfectly:

BBfan
02/07/2011 12:15 PM
Sigh, what has happened to investigative reporting? Where have they all gone? Must we always have yellow journalism just to get clicks.

One only need to look at the stats to see what really happened. St. John’s committed 23 fouls, UCLA committed 15. Not the huge discrepancy that you try erroneously paint in your article.

So, why the difference in free throw shooting when the number of fouls weren’t that great? (This is the question a real reporter would ask.)

If you watched the game, as I did it was immediately obvious. UCLA drove to the basket and got fouled. The two-shot kind of foul. St. John’s passed the ball around the perimeter a lot and when they were fouled it was almost never in the act of shooting.

One team was aggressive and got rewarded and the other team was passive and whined about the outcome.

Lavin, as always, is a great guy but a terrible coach. Look for the real reasons that St. John’s lost and not one that panders the fans.

C’mon, watch the game before reporting on it instead of just reading about it from whining fans.

by CPOBruin on Feb 7, 2011 2:10 PM PST reply actions

the funny thing is

St. John’s fans really don’t think they got screwed. I watched the game with 3 or 4 of them and they fully acknowledged that Smith, Reeves and Honeycutt were hacked every time they went inside. St. John’s plays a rough, physical game that essentially consists of reaching, swiping and hacking. When you play a team that’s bigger than you, that turns into fouls.

by bucknellbruin on Feb 7, 2011 2:42 PM PST up reply actions

I have noticed that

The most telling sign is reading some of the St. John’s fans’ threads. Those who actually watched the game really aren’t too upset about the foul discrepancy. They’re disappointed in their team’s performance, but they even acknowledge that their players reverted to hacking our guys every single posession (especially in the second half). I think it’s interesting that only one of their players was in foul trouble (Boothe with 4), but seven other players had 2-3 fouls apiece. That distribution of hacking seems like a calculated strategy by their “coach” (who undoubtedly knows that our Bruins are a horrible free-throw shooting team).

It’s really only the sports writers that are forced to cover games they have no personal interest in that are complaining about the fouls. Most of them probably saw a couple highlights and looked over the box score in order to write their “article”.

by BruinMW on Feb 7, 2011 3:06 PM PST up reply actions

LOL at

“This is the question a real reporter would ask.”

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Feb 7, 2011 3:35 PM PST up reply actions

NY Post --- the fishiest of fish-wrap

This rag is the print version of fact-challenged FOX “news” - ’nuf said.

by C.T. in Boston on Feb 8, 2011 6:48 PM PST up reply actions

Not buying it

Even my girlfriend (who rarely watches basketball) commented on how many times the “red team” mugged our guys. St. Johns doesn’t have much inside presence, and that is the result. Boo hoo.

by hicalliber on Feb 7, 2011 2:49 PM PST reply actions

At least the nation is now aware of our SPTRs.

Even though in this case they’re using wrong evidence.

Go Bruins!

by uclaluv on Feb 7, 2011 4:31 PM PST reply actions

We can't defend the Pac 10 Ref's

and they cannot defend their “coach”.

They hacked because they don’t play great D. They don’t stay in front of players and have to reach. When we do the same thing, and we used to a lot more than we do now, we reach too.

I actually think they got the better deal on calls — the egregious non-call on the hack on Smith was the worst mistake they made, and the call on Lee the second worst. The announcers, pure NY homers agreed that Smith was mugged and that the guy that Lee allegedly fouled was acting.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Feb 8, 2011 7:54 AM PST up reply actions