The Definition of Good Karma

By Yoni Cohen on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 04:35:04 PM EST

George Washington's overtime victory over Charlotte.

News ::


Display:
The Definition of Good Karma | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden) | Post A Comment

Ouch Babe (none / 0)

What an epic technical there at the end...and yet, completely deserved.

by SenatorTCJ on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 04:51:02 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

For what it's worth... (none / 0)

...the referees botched the rule. The technicals should have been shot first, then the personals, with the rebound opportunity for the personals. They changed the rule from two shots and the ball to point of interruption several years back (I think 2002-2003) and the A-10 office ought to have that addressed.

by SetonHallPirate on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 05:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

at the very least (none / 0)

the colonials would have had to take the ball out at the other end of the court after the charlotte ft's

by Anonymous Hero on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:47:04 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I'm not so sure (none / 0)

You're right about the point of interruption change. But penalties still have to be administered in the order which the fouls occurred. I could be wrong, since the announcers made no effort to sort it out.

by kenpom on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 12:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Ken, based on this example, it's a mistake: (none / 0)

In the 2004 Texas-Xavier NCAA tournament game, Rick Barnes got 2 technicals after Texas' final shot was rebounded by Xavier:

"UT's Sydmill Harris missed a three-point attempt on the next possession and Dedrick Finn was fouled while pulling down the rebound with four seconds left.

After the foul, the UT bench was assessed two technical fouls and Sato converted three of four attempts followed by two makes from Finn to ice the game for Xavier at 79-71."

http://goxavier.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/032604aaa.html


by Anonymous Hero on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 02:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

But... (none / 0)

I do conceed that the technical was on the rebounding team in this scenario. But the "order of the fouls" argument doesn't seem to hold.

by Anonymous Hero on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 02:06:37 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

good game - bad play and luck (none / 0)

It was good karma, Charlotte played great the entire game otherwise (and this is coming from a GW fan).  But, that was a stupid play by the Charlotte player and the technical seemed legit.  Good teams get lucky sometimes -- today was GW's turn.

by Anonymous Hero on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 05:44:34 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

LeeMire Goldwire... (none / 0)

...definitely lost his head with the elbow thing...I'm surprised he didn't get ejected.

by SetonHallPirate on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 06:07:15 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Refs were more than fair (none / 0)

I think because Mike Hall committed the foul first they had those foul shots taken first.  And the refs showed great restraint, IMO too MUCH restraint, in not teeing up Lutz for running onto the court, arguing the call, walking up to the officials when they were reviewing the play (TWICE) and arguing even after being warned by every official twice to stop.  I guess they wanted the outcome to be decided by the players and not by the coaches.  Certainly a finish (and win) for the ages.  Best EVER!

by Anonymous Hero on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 07:16:46 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

Lutz out of control (none / 0)

No question. Lutz was out of control. He should have recived a T for charging the court. Refs should have been tougher on Lutz.

by Anonymous Hero on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:43:48 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

GW's Opponents (none / 0)

Charlotte played a terrific game yesterday against a very athletic GW team.  Hobbs must be sick about the free throws.

I would think that a technical for hitting someone, is flagrant and it comes with the change of possession.  However, is there such a thing as a flagrant technical.

I just looked this up:

RULE 7-5/OUT OF BOUNDS AND THE THROW-IN BR-107
Art. 10. (Men): After an intentional technical foul or a flagrant technical foul, any team member of the offended team may attempt the free throws and the ball shall be put back in play by any player of that team from a designated
spot at the division line at either side of the playing court.

GW may be tougher than most think.  Even though they play in the depressed A10, these A10 teams play GW tough, as it's their only shot for fame.


by Anonymous Hero on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 08:40:19 AM EST
[ Reply to This ]

The rules are hard to read! (none / 0)

Maybe this is more on target than my previous posting as anonymous:


Art. 15. After the administration of the penalty for a personal foul, an indirect technical foul or a direct technical foul, the penalty for a single flagrant technical foul or (men) a single intentional technical foul shall be administered. The ball shall be put back into play by any player of the offended team:

   a. (Men) at a designated spot at the division line at either side of the playing court.

I think the referees got it right.  


by Old Colonial on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 09:04:49 AM EST
[ Reply to This ]

Lutz on the court (none / 0)

You are dead wrong about Lutz being assessed a technical for coming onto the court.

The rule was changed to allow coaches to come onto the court to try to stop incidents -- to restrain their players, etc.

It is a technical if PLAYERS leave the bench area in the same situation -- not coaches.

What Lutz did was good to grab his player and try to stop the situation from escalating and this example is EXACTLY why this rule is in place.

Knowing the rule would be good before you spout off on here.


by tigerheel on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 11:15:32 AM EST
[ Reply to This ]

Shouldn've been a double technical (none / 0)

Was the technical deserved? Yes, but a technical should've also been assessed to GW. Hall was the instigator AND the escalator. Perhaps none of the refs saw the whole sequence of events as they occurred. If not, the refs dropped the ball. Either way, it was a home-court call. and it cost Charlotte the game.

by Anonymous Hero on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 03:31:37 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]

I dunno (none / 0)

I'm not sure about that, from what I remember seeing (at the game and on TV), they were scuffling a little bit after being tied up, and Goldwire threw an elbow, twice. Maybe Hall did something I didn't see though. As for Lutz, from what I recall, he didn't really restrain Goldwire, he basically just ran on and was angry. Maybe you don't have to physically restrain somebody though. Tough to say.

That being said, Bobby Lutz did call for a review of the end of the game.


www.colonialhoops.com
by squidpants on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 11:37:00 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
The Definition of Good Karma | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden) | Post A Comment
praise for this site
"I read your blog 2-3 times a day. Keep it coming!"
Gregg Doyel, Columnist
CBS SportsLine, (2004-2005)
praise for this site
"I really enjoy your site.
It's easy to see why people keep coming back. I know I will."
Jay Bilas, Analyst
ESPN, (2004-2005)
praise for this site
"I love the site."
Dan Wetzel, Columnist
Yahoo Sports, (2004-2005)
praise for this site
"I check your blog every day. Grant [Wahl] was right -- it's the best one out there. I rely on it to keep me informed."
Seth Davis, Reporter
Sports Illustrated, (2004-2005)
premium blogads
praise for this site
"The definitive blog for college hoops. A regular stop."
Mark Simon, Researcher
ESPN (College Hoops Extra), (2004-2005)
lead blogads
praise for this site
"If you aren't reading this blog, you aren't following college basketball."
Ed Cone, Columnist
Greensboro News & Record, (2004-2005)
blogads