Jump to content

Silsbee 79 Hardin-Jefferson 76/FINAL


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Now, my personal opinion, not relevant here, I think if the foul doesn't effect the shot (fouls after ball is released) , it shouldn't be called.  Again, just my personal opinion.

But in real life this call is made every time.  and the ref can't say that this is one of those bang bang calls either...  


But the foul does affect the shot.  If the defender is running directly at you and jumps at an angle that will make him run into you,( thereby not permitting you to land on your feet), that defensive approach alters the shot attempt to some degree.  I have seen many a layup where the foul occurred after the shot was released and most of the time it is an "and one" situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't ever blame the officials but they swallowed their whistle on the last three and also reversed a call after a conference at the halftime buzzer. The Hawks were in a double bonus on that one and it was waived off after the call was made , both should have been shot . We can't change the rules according to game circumstances, if it's a foul in the first it's a foul in the fourth. Water under the bridge now, lets go Hawks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, stevenash said:


But the foul does affect the shot.  If the defender is running directly at you and jumps at an angle that will make him run into you,( thereby not permitting you to land on your feet), that defensive approach alters the shot attempt to some degree.  I have seen many a layup where the foul occurred after the shot was released and most of the time it is an "and one" situation.

Great point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, whsalum said:

I don't ever blame the officials but they swallowed their whistle on the last three and also reversed a call after a conference at the halftime buzzer. The Hawks were in a double bonus on that one and it was waived off after the call was made , both should have been shot . We can't change the rules according to game circumstances, if it's a foul in the first it's a foul in the fourth. Water under the bridge now, lets go Hawks. 

Similar to the ending in BC v Ltown game.  Clock at zero after a missed attempt by BC.  After Ref's conference, .24 sec was put back on clock, and BC got 2 free throws.  I saw the video of the no-call in this game.  The Ref seem to follow the ball.  I'm inclined to think he missed the contact.  It's unfortunate because it taints an otherwise great game, however slightly.  

Still, a great game, and as you said, water under the bridge.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, stevenash said:


But the foul does affect the shot.  If the defender is running directly at you and jumps at an angle that will make him run into you,( thereby not permitting you to land on your feet), that defensive approach alters the shot attempt to some degree.  I have seen many a layup where the foul occurred after the shot was released and most of the time it is an "and one" situation.

Out of likes, but true post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Saw the video. That was a foul.

Everybody wanna say that’s a foul show all the other fouls the other way that wasn’t called!!!! Even being in the bonus in 3rd quarter touch fouls on us and not calling it the other way. Trying to figure out the point. H-J played above there heads great job Hawks but that one play didn’t lose the game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can compare fouls on both teams all day.  Some will be correct, some incorrect, and some subject to interpretation.  If you havent seen the one that is being referenced, you are ill equipped to pass judgement.  If you were at the game, explain to me why, at the end of the first half, with HJ in the bonus, a foul was called on Silsbee with three seconds to go.  The whistle blew and then the buzzer went off and then the refs had a "consultation" and the foul was waived off.  Judging from what I saw at the end of each half, my guess is they simply didnt want to spend any more time on the court.  I will repeat something to you based on your complaint.  When you play a highly aggressive defense, you are likely to get turnovers or fouls.  That is the risk that goes with that approach.  Did you see the video?  Did the offended player deserve a chance to shoot three free throws?  Would have made all three?  Nobody knows.  But I do KNOW he EARNED that opportunity and it was not given to him.  I find it quite interesting that you suggest that the missed foul had no impact on the game but "a lot of other fouls called against Silsbee did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, stevenash said:

We can compare fouls on both teams all day.  Some will be correct, some incorrect, and some subject to interpretation.  If you havent seen the one that is being referenced, you are ill equipped to pass judgement.  If you were at the game, explain to me why, at the end of the first half, with HJ in the bonus, a foul was called on Silsbee with three seconds to go.  The whistle blew and then the buzzer went off and then the refs had a "consultation" and the foul was waived off.  Judging from what I saw at the end of each half, my guess is they simply didnt want to spend any more time on the court.  I will repeat something to you based on your complaint.  When you play a highly aggressive defense, you are likely to get turnovers or fouls.  That is the risk that goes with that approach.  Did you see the video?  Did the offended player deserve a chance to shoot three free throws?  Would have made all three?  Nobody knows.  But I do KNOW he EARNED that opportunity and it was not given to him.  I find it quite interesting that you suggest that the missed foul had no impact on the game but "a lot of other fouls called against Silsbee did.

I’ve seen it and was on front row so just over look all the other fouls like I said you guys played over your heads good job I don’t see you complaining about all the no calls on your side so take the loss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, stevenash said:

We can compare fouls on both teams all day.  Some will be correct, some incorrect, and some subject to interpretation.  If you havent seen the one that is being referenced, you are ill equipped to pass judgement.  If you were at the game, explain to me why, at the end of the first half, with HJ in the bonus, a foul was called on Silsbee with three seconds to go.  The whistle blew and then the buzzer went off and then the refs had a "consultation" and the foul was waived off.  Judging from what I saw at the end of each half, my guess is they simply didnt want to spend any more time on the court.  I will repeat something to you based on your complaint.  When you play a highly aggressive defense, you are likely to get turnovers or fouls.  That is the risk that goes with that approach.  Did you see the video?  Did the offended player deserve a chance to shoot three free throws?  Would have made all three?  Nobody knows.  But I do KNOW he EARNED that opportunity and it was not given to him.  I find it quite interesting that you suggest that the missed foul had no impact on the game but "a lot of other fouls called against Silsbee did.

And by the way I’m equipped to pass judgement on whatever the hell I want too fella

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The loss was taken last night.  The foul in question was a glaring error.  Did it change the outcome of the game?  Who knows?  Using your "judgement" was that foul a potential game changer?  Should it have been called?  If it was an obvious foul, which everyone but you says it was, should it not matter because of some other calls you disagreed with?  I said that if you didnt see the foul, you werent qualified to pass judgement on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, undiscovered said:

You are very illogical if you think signs from a student section, that calls themselves “hecklers”, are inappropriate. You are a fool. Let the kids have fun, and heckle. As long as they aren’t cussing or throwing things on the court, they should be able to get as rowdy as they want... that is what makes these games fun. 

You called me a fool.  Really?  You just up and call people fools when you disagree with them?  A kid is holding a sign that says TRASH and chanting while Jordan Adams is at the free throw line.  That is what happened.  I saw it.  In effect it singled one kid out calling him trash.  So at least one of the signs was completely inappropriate and any AP there should have removed it and admonished the kid.  

This is a school setting, an educational facility.  There are many things that are inappropriate in addition to the two things you list.  Students in a public school should not be permitted to demean student athletes from another school.  And frankly they shouldn't heckle.  Not everything that is fun can be permitted.  End of story.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JimThorpe said:

You called me a fool.  Really?  You just up and call people fools when you disagree with them?  A kid is holding a sign that says TRASH and chanting while Jordan Adams is at the free throw line.  That is what happened.  I saw it.  In effect it singled one kid out calling him trash.  So at least one of the signs was completely inappropriate and any AP there should have removed it and admonished the kid.  

This is a school setting, an educational facility.  There are many things that are inappropriate in addition to the two things you list.  Students in a public school should not be permitted to demean student athletes from another school.  And frankly they shouldn't heckle.  Not everything that is fun can be permitted.  End of story.  

Seriously?  It’s. a. basketball. game!  Keep it clean, but c’mon.  The kids have fun, it makes for a good atmosphere.  You want them to sit on their hands?  Maybe fans should not be allowed to cheer at all, certainly not when an opposing players miss a shot.  That would be demeaning and might really hurt someone’s self esteem.  High school athletes can handle a little good natured heckling without the fun police having to step in.  Good grief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not at the game. I got a questions. Is it a foul if the ball was tipped? The film is a little blurry at that point but that Silsbee defender go up there, could have tipped the ball. Thing is, if the ball was tipped it almost went in maybe that is why it almost went in. Who knows? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, STiger85 said:

I was not at the game. I got a questions. Is it a foul if the ball was tipped? The film is a little blurry at that point but that Silsbee defender go up there, could have tipped the ball. Thing is, if the ball was tipped it almost went in maybe that is why it almost went in. Who knows? 

Yes would still be a foul not like a pass interference call in football..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

The loss was taken last night.  The foul in question was a glaring error.  Did it change the outcome of the game?  Who knows?  Using your "judgement" was that foul a potential game changer?  Should it have been called?  If it was an obvious foul, which everyone but you says it was, should it not matter because of some other calls you disagreed with?  I said that if you didnt see the foul, you werent qualified to pass judgement on it.

Ok sir 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BH85 said:

The foul happens after the player lands on the floor, so the contact is after the shot.  Even in double bonus, 2 bonus free throws wouldn't make up the 3 point difference.  

Sorry but the shot was a three point attempt.  Obviously earns three free throws.  The act of shooting includes allowing the shooter to land on his feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Sorry but the shot was a three point attempt.  Obviously earns three free throws.  The act of shooting includes allowing the shooter to land on his feet.

It looked like the shooter did land on his feet. The defender just started on his way down and the shooter was already on his feet. From what you have typed, to my understanding, no foul. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This foul is being overly discussed because it was at the end of the game. All the missed points because no fouls we're called under the basket...all game...are not being talked about. Silsbee won. HJ played their feathers off. Great game to watch. Props to HJ for a well executed game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...