Geez, I wish Dodd and others would just get a life. Let's review here for a second. Sorry, this is a long post.
1. The Stanford Foul. Yes, there was contact. Even McCabe, the head of the Pac 10 officials acknowledged it days later. However, his comment was that the foul shouldn't have been called in that type of situation, whatever that means.
What many columnists and others are ignoring is that if you watch the replay carefully, Lawrence Hill was vertical. However, he jumped up and into Collison. Though his body was vertical, the jump wasn't. It was at an angle at Collison. Watch the replays. I have, several times. Secondly, I believe that once he's jumped, it can then be argued that he initiated contact, not Collison. There's no question that the shot block itself was good. All ball. But there was clearly body contact. To make the claim that the foul shouldn't be called just because it's the end of the game is ludicrous. That attitude gives license to any defender to hack and beatup anyone driving to the basket or attempting to shoot at the last minute, and not worry about being called for the foul. Some might say that this is what happened at the end of the UCLA/Texas A&M game. I'll get to that later.
It's also been mentioned that on the possession immediately preceeding this play, Hill drove to the basket and bowled over Kevin Love scoring the go ahead basket. Watching the play over and over again, it appears that Love was planted. It also appears that Hill tried to shift sideways and avoid him, but he still bowled him over. Was it a charge or a blocking foul on Love? Who knows? It wasn't called, yet it should've been, one way or the other.
The one thing that really bugs me about the foul called on Hill, was the claim that this call gave UCLA the game. This is total bulls***. The idiots making this claim ignore the fact that Collison still had to sink both free throws just to get to overtime. Then in overtime, UCLA had a chance to win it. Funny thing, Stanford also had a chance to win it in OT, but they didn't. But by that time, there were no more "controversial" calls. Still, thanks to Dodd and other sports writers, the controversy will live on.
2. The Cal "non-foul". As someone else here said, watch the replay. Ironically, the best angle was the camera above the court, up on the concourse showing the court from the side. Yes, Westbrook's left hand was on Anderson's back. But watch his right hand and that downward motion that Coach Lavin said was an absolute guarantee of a hacking foul. The ball comes loose, but Anderson's arms are stationary. They don't move. Just the ball. Had he hit his arms you'd think they would've moved. They didn't. Other angles and replays show that during the ensuing scramble for the ball, Anderson dove for it, and accidentally tipped the ball out with his fingertips. It didn't go off his leg or anyone else's as some have claimed.
Also, watch the position of the refs. The baseline ref was on the right side of the basket, about 20-25 feet from where the ball was inbounded to Anderson. The sideline ref in question was about the same distance but down the sideline. As the ball was inbounded, the baseline ref was blocked by other players. So he couldn't see what was happening between Anderson, Shipp and Westbrook. The sideline ref couldn't see anything except Anderson's back. If Westbrook actually did hack and hit Anderson's arms, he couldn't have seen it, nor could the baseline ref. Curiously, the sideline ref, rushed up to the action, just in time to call the ball out of bounds as Anderson tipped it out.
Also, keep in mind that this game happened on Saturday afternoon, barely 24 hrs. after all the complaints about the Stanford call on Thursday night. Is it possible that given McCabe's admonishing Thursday Night's refs, that these refs didn't want to call anything unless they were absolutely sure?
3. The "illegal" Shipp shot. I was there for both the Stanford and Cal games. Our seats were behind the UCLA basket and from our angle, it was an incredible shot. It was clear that Shipp was behind the rim, but it looked like the ball went up and over the side. Later, re-watching the game on our DVR, it was clear that you couldn't really tell if the ball went up and over the backboard from behind. At most, it looked like 1/2 the ball went over the corner. Is that illegal? Many seem to think so, including the head of Pac 10 officiating, Mr. McCabe. However, I understand that the head of NCAA officiating said that it wasn't. His interpretation of the rules was that the rule regarding the ball going over the backboard was only intended to prevent the ball from being inbounded by throwing it over the backboard from out of bounds. It was never meant to prevent anyone taking such a ridiculously low percentage shot. As it is, it's easy to see why the refs didn't call it. It's not a clear, definitive violation.
4. The Texas A&M "blocked" final shot. Yes it was a foul, and yes it should've been called. Collison has his hand on Sloan's elbow, and Shipp has his hand on Sloan's wrist milliseconds before Shipp strips the ball from him. But if I'm arguing that Hill's foul on Collison should've been called, then I should be consistent, and say that this foul should've been called too. Yes, it should've bee. But again, the fact that this foul wasn't called didn't give UCLA the game. Sloan, a 67% free throw shooter would've had to make both free throws. There still would've been 4-5 seconds left for UCLA to either score or take it into overtime. UCLA had the momentum. I don't think the Aggies would've won in OT. They scored 5 points in the last 10 mins. of the game, they couldn't hit their free throws. The Bruins switched their defensive style from low post double-teaming to single coverage. The Aggies couldn't handle it. They have no one to blame but themselves.
It really is unfortunate that the game ended on such a "controversial" play. The foul should've been called. But the officiating didn't give them the game.
Like many close UCLA games this year, the officiating really was pathetic. Collison's foul on Sloan when Sloan wrapped his arm around him and then threw him was the most flagrant example. But watching the game you'll see bad calls/non calls through out the game favoring both sides.
Face it. UCLA is a very good basketball team. No, they are not 100%. Not at all. Shipp is struggling to find his outside shot, and Mbah Amoute is playing on a bad ankle. Hell, even Michael Roll, their 3 point shooter is still injured.
But they're in the Sweet 16, and frankly, even though they're not 100%, they can take on anybody, and beat anybody.
