Controversial ending to Creighton/SDSU
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
BS call in my opinion but I also had an issue when they called a foul with about 8 sec left in the game 30+ feet from the basket. It allowed them to reset the shot clock. Let the players decide the outcome.
I wasted 30 minutes watching the last two minutes of a game decided by the refs. I wouldn't have called that a foul at the beginning or end of the game.
I wasted 30 minutes watching the last two minutes of a game decided by the refs. I wouldn't have called that a foul at the beginning or end of the game.
I'm on the fence about it. I didn't get to see the whole game, so I can't say if the foul was consistent with how they'd called the rest of the game.
Buuuuuuuut, it did appear to be a foul. He did have his left on the hip and appear to change the shooter's trajectory.
Tough spot for the ref...darned if you have a no-call, darned if you call a ticky-tack foul. Either way, the contact put the decision in the hands of the ref to call or not call.
Buuuuuuuut, it did appear to be a foul. He did have his left on the hip and appear to change the shooter's trajectory.
Tough spot for the ref...darned if you have a no-call, darned if you call a ticky-tack foul. Either way, the contact put the decision in the hands of the ref to call or not call.
Last edited:
Go back and watch the one they called prior. Creighton was going to get the ball back with about 3 seconds+. They called a very cheap foul with about 10 seconds left at half court to reset the clock for SDST. Nobody is talking about that foul but it was just as costly. Terrible ending to a great game.
Hack on the arm = foul. Hand on hip and guy flopping as insurance = no call.
If you're going to start calling fouls every time a player is touched then do so. Otherwise let the game be the game.
If you're going to start calling fouls every time a player is touched then do so. Otherwise let the game be the game.
I agree with Jay Wright on this one. Technically it was the right call. It was a foul. But it had been a physical game for 39.8 minutes. And for the most part, the refs were letting them play. That's why I don't like the call. It's not consistent with how the game was called. You coach kids to play how the refs are calling it. If they're letting you play, then you can be more physical. If the refs are really involved, then you tell your kids to be careful and don't get too aggressive. To the people saying "let the players decide it"...well, they did. The Creighton kid decided to foul him. It should have been a no call b/c of the way the rest of the game was played, not b/c it was at the end of the game and the players should decide it.
Agreed. Ball and strikes are the same way. Consistency has to be there. You can't call the outside corner a ball the majority of the game and then ring someone up on the last pitch with the same location. Sure, it's technically a strike but it hadn't been called a strike the majority of the game.
It WAS a ticky-tack call, though technically it was a foul. However, coming out of the stoppage, the one thing Creighton had to be stressing was "don't foul." So to even make contact like that shouldn't have happened. Once the contact is made, you're leaving your fate up to the ref to call it or not call it.
you and I think too much alike. Had someone on the insiders ask me specifically if I'd think that was a no call if it had been a Gamecock shooting. I was thinking about answering him with that very same baseball analogy.
Eh, I think it altered his shot. You can see him turn a little. He didn't just put his hand there. He gave him a little tug as well. It was the right call in a vacuum, but not with how that game was called to that point.
Agreed. If you watched the game (you probably did), you could identify at least 15 shots that had much more contact than the last shot in which fouls weren't called.
Why were you upset with the foul call with 6 seconds left? That was intentional by Creighton to not allow them to set up the play with the time they wanted. It literally happens all the time. They must have felt better about disrupting what they wanted to do rather than worry about the 2 second difference. It’s a smart play really.
For me, while there may have been harder fouls, this one was very intentional and you have to call it. It wasn't like reaching for the ball and accidentally hitting the body, or grazing the shooter's hand on the last shot. He intentionally grabbed the shooter, who happened to have all eyes on him at that moment. There was no choice but to call it.
Intentional? Give me a break. San Diego state is known for their rough play. There were 17 foul shots total in the entire game. The refs swallowed their whistle but decided to call something they didn't call all game.
It was intentional. His hand didn’t accidentally grab the hip and pull. Again, it wasn’t the hardest foul, but you can’t let someone intentionally foul on the last shot of the game. This is especially true when you just have a 1-on-1 situation and everyone in the arena is looking at only those two guys.
Then every foul is intentional. You don't accidentally put your hand up and hit someone's hand when they are shooting.
That’s not even close to true. No one is trying to foul when they go for a block, but many times they miss, hit the shooter’s hand or body, and a foul is a called. However, this guy intentionally grabbed and pulled the shooter’s hip for an advantage. It was a sly maneuver, using his inside hand, but he got caught.
Intentional? ‘Grabbed the shooter’?
Err no; strongly disagree.
I really couldn’t care less but there is no way in that game, on that stage, at that point, you whistle that play. That’s not basketball, that’s drama.
Watch it again, from the original feed angle. It's too blatant (and visible) to not call. The offensive guy blows by the defender, and from behind you see the arm reach way forward to grab the guy by the hip. (Which, I had watched Creighton throughout the tourney - that's clearly a defensive maneuver they teach because that was about the 5th time I saw a Creighton defender grab hips to slow down his man after an offensive player got the corner on them. It would happen a lot around screens.)
But the offensive player made the play to get a clear shot, but because there's only 10 seconds left the refs shouldn't call a blatant and obvious foul? The dude's black arm band on the white uniform also makes it way more visible. I agree that isn't the time to call ticky-tack fouls (like brushing the hand after a clear shot, or even a small blocking foul on turn if the offensive guy didn't make it cleanly around him). But reaching forward to grab a guy that got past you - got to call it.
A foul is a foul is a foul, regardless of how much time is left in the game. Either it's a foul and you call it, or it isn't and there's nothing to call - play on.
This is where I am on it. If it wasn't for the situation with the amount of time left in the game, nobody would have blinked about that being called a foul at the end of the game. Maybe it wasn't consistent with how they'd been calling the game up to that point, but if you commit a foul, there's a chance it may get called.
Agreed but call a foul a foul the entire game. Don't wait to call a foul a foul until the last second. Don't allow them to play rough all game and change the way you call it at the very end.
“Aliyah is a tremendous player. They got some tough calls on her tonight. Maybe in a different game they're not fouls.” Caitlin Clark
That’s what I’m saying about the Creighton call. Call the game of basketball, not the game of fouls.
That’s what I’m saying about the Creighton call. Call the game of basketball, not the game of fouls.