RSS
March 7, 2008
UCLA Head of the Pac (Hardee Har Har)
The UCLA Bruins were gifted their third consecutive Pac-10 title by the referees in their game against the #7 Stanford Cardinal.
With less than two seconds to go at the end of regulation Darren Collison drove to the basket and pulled up for a five-footer. Lawrence Hill went up and blocked the shot. Replays clearly showed that Hill got all ball and absolutely no body contact. So of course Hill got called for the foul.
Collison went on to sink both free throws to tie the game and send it to overtime.
But the game was ugly for the Bruins.
The Bruins jumped to a 2-0 lead in the opening moments of the game against the Cardinal. After that it was all Stanford The Bruins were flat-footed offensively with the twin towers of Brooks and Robin Lopez helping to affect almost every shot the Bruins took. The Bruins were down by as much as 14 points in the first half unable to do anything offensively including hitting free throws.
In the second half, the Bruins would go on a good offensive run only to have Stanford answer back. That is until the final minutes of the second half where the Bruins turned on the defense and got stops which allowed Darren Collison to take control of the game.
Even though the Bruins won the game 77-67, their first lead since the opening minute was with 2:46 left in overtime at 65-63. Like I said, they stole this win.
So this makes Ben Howland the first UCLA coach to win three consecutive Pac-10 titles since John Wooden. This also gives the Bruins an easy road to a coveted #1 seed in the tournament. They close the season Saturday afternoon at home against the Cal Golden Bears.
For those of you keeping score, UCSB (22-7, 11-4) is currently in a three-way tie with Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Northridge atop the Big West standings. The Gauchos close out the season Saturday night at 6-23 Long Beach State. They look headed to the tournament for the first time since 2002 where they almost upset #3 seed Arizona Wildcats in the opening round.
AP Photo by Kevork Djansezian
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
to say that UCLA was "gifted" the game is kinda lame, IMHO.
first of all, to say there was "absolutely no body contact" is categorically incorrect. you can make the argument that the contact didn't rise to the level of a foul, especially in that situation, but refs have to make split second judgment calls all the time. yes, it sucks when it happens with so much at stake. but K. Love took a charge at the other end and that wasn't called. refs also make "make-up" calls all the time. would i prefer refs got it right the first time all the time, yes. but it's a fact of sports at all levels - don't diminish the accomplishments of a group of guys because of a judgment call you [and by the looks of the espn message boards, most people] think was bogus.
whatevs. the bruins EARNED that win by battling back, hitting clutch FTs, and dominating in OT. THEY didn't steal anything - they did what they needed to do to get the W. are you suggesting a conspiracy of some sort between the team and the refs?
[ report this ]
"Gifted"? "Stole"? Allow me to retort. There were 2.5 seconds left, not "less than two". You should look at the replay again - there WAS body contact, the referee who called the foul indicated it was a body foul. Granted, it probably should have been a no-call, but even if there was no foul, it would have been UCLA inbounding the ball under their own basket with 2.5 left. Stanford led by 12 at the half, 14 in the 2nd half, 11 with about 5 minutes to go, and by 5 with :51 left, yet UCLA managed to pull it out, hitting 4 CLUTCH free throws in the last 20 seconds to force overtime. UCLA had a horrendous first half, but again demonstrated their no-panic-never-say-die attitude and pulled it out. Stanford did not have the mental toughness to withstand having to go to OT and had a defeated look as soon as UCLA led by more than 2 in OT. Gifted...yeah, right.
[ report this ]
The Bruins did do a good job defensively at the end of regulation to help them go on that run to tie the game. But I still say that foul should not have been called.
After Collison hit those free throws to send the game to OT, it was obvious who was going to win the game.
And I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I'm just suggesting bad officiating.
[ report this ]
Just wanted to second Buzz and Mr. M. There was indeed body contact on that play. Even I, the novice basketball fan, could see it--how the Fox Sports commentators missed it is beyond me. Whether it should have been called is another matter.
Even Stanford's Hill isn't complaining that the call in question cost them the game. From Diane Pucin's article in the L.A. Times:
But Hill didn't complain. "He drew contact when he went to the basket," Hill said. "It was still on him to make the free throws."
[ report this ]
This is absurd. Part of the game is some calls go your way, some calls don't. That call is no more or less important than the time when the shot clock expired when it shouldn't have or the time with a Stanford player jumped out of bounds to save the ball when he clearly jumped off a foot that was out of bounds.
Poor coverage of what was an awesome game.
[ report this ]
it was a makeup call. kevin was clearly charged 5 seconds before with no call. stanford shouldn't have had 63 points with 2.5 seconds left to begin with jimmy!