All Ball: Referee, Horrible Call Give UCLA Bruins Win and Pac-10 Title, Robbing Stanford
By David Neiman | College Basketball, UCLA, ColumnOfficial who called a foul on Stanford’s Lawrence Hill — this with 2.5 seconds remaining in Thursday’s UCLA-Stanford Pac-10 showdown — shame on you, sir.
Stanford (77-67 losers in OT) led virtually the entire game in the conference’s most hostile road environment that matters (read: California is awful, if for no other reason than being Cal), went up by two points on a great leaner by Hill with 7.5 seconds remaining (and that shot could have been an and-1, given the apparent criteria for calling fouls), and then…infamy.
In case you missed it — and it was omitted from the AP report on the game — Darren Collison decided to go one-on-most of the Cardinal defense (I can only imagine what Ben Howland was thinking before that whistle sounded), and got stuffed into the stands.
It was an ill-advised drive and a prayer of a shot attempt, and replays (and the game’s two announcers on FSW) confirmed numerous times that the block was as clean as a…
Oh, the agony.
There’s nothing like a mediocre referee to ruin an otherwise spectacular game. Instead of UCLA taking the ball out near Stanford’s basket with two-plus ticks on the clock, and potentially, a sensational ending, we get Darren Collison — a guy who hits free throws the way Tripp Isenhour hits birds — going to the line to get the Bruins to overtime.
John Wilner of College Hotline summed it up well:
It was a terrific defensive play by Hill. He went straight up, and there was only minor forearm-to-forearm contact. Nothing on the hand or the body.
It should have been a no-call, obviously. Instead, the All-American went to the line, drained two to force overtime, and the Bruins rolled.
When the whistle was blown — by an official who was behind the play — gotta point that out — I thought (Stanford coach) Trent Johnson was going to spontaneously combust.
But that’s what happens on the road. You never get the benefit of the doubt in the final seconds.
ESPN college hoops analyst Doug Gottleib was in complete agreement.
UCLA won its third consecutive Pac-10 title when it beat Stanford 77-67 in overtime on Thursday, but Cardinal coach Trent Johnson has every right to believe his team was better on this night. The game only went to overtime on a terrible foul call on Lawrence Hill as he blocked Darren Collison’s drive with 2.5 seconds remaining. In addition to the ludicrous call, there was an intentional foul called on Stanford, which made the overtime a lock for the Bruins.
Even Collison admitted after the game that he’d been snuffed out like Stanford’s conference title hopes.
“That was a complete block,” Collison said. “We were fortunate to get a call on that.”
I’ll say. What’s almost as bad is hearing people like LA Times’ UCLA blogger Rich Perelman describe the night as “one of the most satisfying conference wins for UCLA in a long time.” Really? Is it that gratifying to have a referee rescue you from having to actually do something to win a game?
The shame.
Don’t worry, deliriously happy Bruins fans: Karma will get you. Remember this “victory” when you’re knocked out of the NCAA tournament, courtesy of a horrendous call.
David Neiman is a freelance sportswriter who has worked for the Washington Post, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Times, Lakers Magazine, and other award-winning publications. He is also the president of Athlete Interactive, a web development company for professional athletes. And in case there was any question — though he actually does root for UCLA when they’re playing anyone else, since he grew up in SoCal — he is a Cardinal (’94).
Discuss:
26 Responses to “All Ball: Referee, Horrible Call Give UCLA Bruins Win and Pac-10 Title, Robbing Stanford”
- 1 Pingback on Mar 7th, 2008 at 12:31 am
- 2 Pingback on Mar 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Loading ...
Explain to me how UCLA puts up with horrendous calls the entire game, and ONE CALL at the end of the game is supposed to take away the whole team’s glory. I’m not going to debate the call. In most circumstances that would have been a non-foul (but give me a break, it wasn’t the cleanest block in the history of basketball either…he did make contact with his body before he blocked the ball). This one call does not change the fact that UCLA fought back from a double digit deficit, and completely smoked Stanford in overtime despite the Lopez twins getting away with murder underneath. Do I think it was the right call? No. Was it the only bad call the entire game? Absolutely not. It is irresponsible and immature of you to treat this game this way. The better team won, end of story, and at the end of the day it was because of the PLAYERS not the REFEREES. If Stanford truly deserved to win this game, they should have shown it in overtime.
Wow, way to be biased. UCLA is gonna get knocked out early? This is a No. 1 seed in the west, no problem. So what that there was a bad call. Bad calls are always there, teams should play to go way over the bad calls. If Stanford with their great Lopez twins were so great, they could’ve been UCLA in OT instead of losing by 10 points. Shame on you, Neiman.
The officiating was horrible. For 35 minutes Pauley Pavillion was sufficated with frustrated Bruin fans booking the refs. Only in the last few minutes did the Bruins get some breaks. If that ratio had been reversed or evenly split, there would have been no overtime. So suck it, Cardinal
I thought this was fairly obvious, but I’m not bringing my normal level of even-handedness to this post (hence, calling myself out at the end of the bio, as well as the headline). And if I were you, I’d likely be saying the same thing you are.
But if you were me — let’s be honest, you’d be going nuts. And to pretend like that one call was the same as other bad calls during the game; it basically kept UCLA from actually having to hit a shot to stay in it. On the road, with a highly partisan crowd, after battling for every second of regulation — that has got to be totally deflating if you’re the Cardinal. Not to mention the intentional foul call in overtime, which pretty much sealed the deal. When I see two teams playing a game like this, I like to see the players decide it.
I will say this, though — and I do mean this with objectivity and really as a fan of the Bruins (when they’re not up against Stanford) — I’m curious to see how UCLA does stack up against the rest of the country come tournament time. They keep winning games, but they don’t feel like a team that’s peaking to me.
Curious to hear what you UCLA fans think as you come to get me.
It was simply an inexcusable call…not a foul, and the whistle seemed to be blown late….that said, UCLA proved thier might in the overtime, and Stanford proved they are mentally weak by laying an egg in that extra session…but UCLA is too lucky, too often for me to think they’re any sort of great team…they prove they can come back despite big defeats, game in and game out, which proves they are tough and well coached, but falling behind as often and consistenly as they do will come back to the bite them…..they’ll get thier favorable top seed in the western bracket, and probalby make the final four, especially if expected teams such as Stanford and Xavier are the other high seeds in that region. UCLA is a top 5 team, but not the best team; and like the last two years, they’ll lose in the final four to a more deeply talented roster, which this year seems to be North Carolina.
One bad call (if you can call it a bad call) isn’t going to rob any team of a game. There were plenty of calls, that should have been no-calls, against UCLA too during the game. Bad calls balance themselves out, not favoring either side. Stanford was just unlucky (more on Stanford’s luck below) they got the last call in regulation. That’s it! No one was robbed.
Talk about luck, what about the lucky bank shot Stanford got nearing the end of regulation and w/ but a few seconds left on the shot clock. What about Mbah A Moute missing the dunk, or Wesbrook missing the sure-in tip-in. The point here is: to focus just on one play and say definitively that that one play was THEEE deciding factor in a team losing, or being robbed of, a game, is to ignore the ENTIRE game’s calls, missed shot, luck shots, etc..
If Stanford was a better team, they would’ve won w/ or w/o the so-called bad call at the end of regulation. Indeed, given that UCLA didn’t show up for the first 30 min. of the game, given UCLA’s uncharacteristic missed dunks and layups and tip-in’s, given Stanford’s lucky bank shots, if Stanford was a better team, they wouldn’t have had to rely on a bare 2 pt. lead to win the game.
So, Stanford was not robbed of anything. They LOST to a better team, UCLA. And, UCLA, despite misplaced karma, will go far into the tour., if not win the whole thing.
in above post, that’s “big deficits,” not “big defeats…
…they prove they can come back despite big deficits
Dear Stanford,
Serves you right.
Sincerely,
Arizona.
Dear UCLA,
F-U,
Love always,
Arizona.
5 things to consider:
- Although almost all stanfords ponts were from their front line they did not shoot a free throw (even an and1)until there were 9 minutes left in the game…hmmm
- That was a sweet change in direction layup earlier in the game (don’t remember who because I was laughing too hard at the time), I didn’t think that was legal…hmmm
- Nice 4 point play Collison (he did fall down though didn’t he)…hmmm
- Flagrant foul (I was wondering how UCLA would cover in an overtime game)…hmmm
lastly, was it a coincidence that all the bad calls seemed to come from one side of the court…hmm. no I guess not…
I’m not big in following college ball, but it seems that the difference is getting smaller between college and professional basketball. I’m so sick of seeing the likes of Lebon and Wade get a call anytime they miss a shot… apparently, respected youngsters in the NCAA get ridiculous calls as well. O’ what to do about sports… has anyone created a robot technology to make calls yet?
While UCLA can, at times, struggle to find consistent offense, they’re a team that can do serious damage in the tourney because at any given time, they could hold an opponent to four points over five minutes. They just lock down. They’re good enough on that end to give the O some time to make up a deficit.
I think they’ve got as good a chance as anyone.
As for the call… yeah, it was pretty bad. But maybe you should remind your guys to box out on missed freethrows, David. Making ‘em in the clutch wouldn’t hurt, either. (haha)
This website is called “Sports Hub LA” not “Whiny Hub Palo Alto.”
Apparently the author of this article was too busy to watch the entire basketball game and instead tuned in for the last minute of regulation. Had he watched the entire game, he would’ve recognized the plethora of bad calls and non-calls that plagued the entire 40 minutes. To take it a step further, every person who actually watched the game would’ve concluded without hesitation that 90% of those referee mistakes negatively affected UCLA.
It’s biased sports writers who are incredibly misinformed, such as Mr. Neiman, that cause blogs such as Sports Hub LA to lose their credibility - and ultimately their readers.
Next time, watch the entire game. Better yet, why not go to Pauley Pavillion, where you would’ve seen your precious Cardinal completely break down and fail to do anything in the 5 minutes of overtime. The technical foul call didn’t break your backs in overtime, especially considering Westbrook failed to convert all of his shots. It was your lack of defense and conditioning that ultimately led to your defeat.
Nobody robbed you of anything. The Bruins beat you soundly.
As a recent reader of your articles, especially your Laker/Kobe ones, I have been much impressed with both your writing style and insight. Your article on the evolution of Kobe was probably the best piece on Kobe I’ve ever read. Absolute masterpiece. After reading many a worthless article on ESPN, you are definatly a refreshing sports writer. That being said, I’m disappointed with the tone of this one. After reading your recent Lakers articles, I enjoyed that you wrote nearly void of bias and favoritism, yet were still able to make excellent points supporting the Lakers and Kobe. However, your objectivity seemed to fly right out the window in this piece. I understand the frustration of being robbed of a game, but I think you could have railed against the poor officiating without getting so emotionally evolved (much like you did when offering a rebuttal to Kelly Dwyer’s Lebron over Kobe article). And if I were you, I probably would be going nuts. But then again, I’m not a sportswriter. I must say this has been my only gripe with you up to this point. Other than that, keep up the good work!
Does anyone own the URL for Whiny Hub Palo Alto?
90% of the calls went stanfords way huh. is that why they were shooting so many foul shots…oh wait…they didn’y shoot any you JA. Also, ucla got the ball after the missed tech free throws you dumb ass necessitating another foul. And lastly…soundly…wasn’t it an overtime game where stanford led by almost ten the whole game…You’re a homering idiot.
LA did win, and that’s the way it goes… but you better hope no one in starting line up gets hurt because they have the thinest bench I’ve ever seen for a good team. One injury and your through. Good luck with that…and next time take off your baby blue glasses when your watching a game, they make you look like a —!
Some interesting, hilariously unbiased responses here.
First off, I pledge to the readers of SportsHubLA, Whiny Hub Palo Alto, and elsewhere that in the future, when I’m wearing my fan hat, I will begin my posts with some kind of a disclaimer — something like, “Before you proceed any further, be forewarned that you are dealing with an unapologetic advocate of one of the teams/players/coaches mentioned in this post, which is wholly reflective of my own egregiously personal bias, and which is in no way representative of journalism, per se, with the exception that the author usually is, from time to time, a sportswriter.”
A number of you have pointed out the preponderance of bad calls against UCLA over the course of the game; I wouldn’t argue with you about that. Nevertheless, the referees weren’t putting the ball into the basket for Stanford. Give credit where credit was due — the Cardinal played great defense on UCLA all game long. And with the score tied at 63, in a hostile road arena, Stanford went down and had to hit a great shot to try to win the game. UCLA got a pass.
Wouldn’t you — not as UCLA fans, but just fans of college basketball — want to see a game as close as this was decided not on a terrible call, but a great shot? The Bruins still had an opportunity to win the game — how incredible would that have been if, instead of seeing a near-perfect free throw shooter go to the line on a non-call, Collison had buried a three to win it at the buzzer? It’s really just a disappointment, period, that a ref would interject himself into the end of a game like that.
Also, none of the UCLA faithful who’ve responded to my post have really even acknowledged the fact that Collison himself — while being shushed by his teammates — admitted that it was a completely clean block. If your star player admits that he got away with one, it seems strange that his fans wouldn’t.
That said, I do like the Bruins, and hope they go far in the tourney — unless they wind up playing Stanford again.
Here Here DN!!!
I’m a huge Pac-10 fan and I hope UCLA gets beaten the first round of the NCAA…and to make it even better…beaten on a BAD call. How can an inferior ref be allowed to ref such an important and fabulous game.
I agree that it was a bad call and it’s unfortunate that the game ended on that note. However, there were horrendous calls against the Bruins that were turned into points almost every time. Stanford fan only remembers the last call.
DN, it’s true, no one likes to see a game end, or prolonged, w/ a call. Nevertheless, just as Stanford got a questionable call, so too did UCLA not get a charging call just one play prior. Like I’ve been saying, the bad ref-ing balances itself out througout the game.
Bad calls, or no calls, are part of the game. They are called, or not, in every game. The better team wins inspite of them; the lessor team (or at least its fans) blames them when they lose.
PSLAV, name calling only diverts from the points you’re trying to make. If you were the better team, you wouldn’t have had to rely on a bare 2 pt. lead at the end of regulation. You lost, despite the no call on your double dribble; despite the no call charge on Love; despite UCLA didn’t show up until 30 min into the game; despite your lucky bank shots; despite the fact that we were missing easy dunks and tip-ins; despite the fact that you still had five min. of OT to prove yourselves, only to get your asses kicked miserably.
That said, Standford played a good game and showed much grace after the game. I’m sure Stanford will put this behind them and look forward to the conf. and NCAA tours. Stanford fans should do the same!
It’s a shame to have a referee decide the outcome of a hard-fought battle between two top-10 teams. It should be decided by the players.
I’m wondering if the ref was paid off…
Fortunately for UCLA, Stanford is the only team they’ll have to face with TWO quality 7-footers… let’s not forget that UCLA has already beaten the Cardinal–in Palo Alto–this year. True, the Bruins’ bench needs to step up; and yes, Ship needs to find his shot to help open the paint for Love, but while UCLA’s offense is still plagued by extended funks, the difference this year is Love’s presence down low. While anything can happen in the tourney, this is the best Bruin team since Eddie O’Banon and Tyus Edny led them all the way in ‘95. On top of this, there is no dominant team like Florida in ‘06 and ‘07. Teams like UNC, Memphis, Duke, Texas and Kansas are good teams, but not great teams. If any one of them played in the PAC-10, they’d probably be looking at a few more losses. I won’t say UCLA’s going to win it all (look what the Huskies did to them), but when healthy, they have just as good of a chance as anyone else, and better than most.
10-4 Rich…I thought about the names later and I Appoligize, but I was frustrated by the blind ignorance….But my point is not that stanford’s better. To me it’s obvious that they are not, they are not the potential 1 seed with the recent winning experience in the NCAAs. No, my point is Stanford led the whole game and therefore were not “beaten soundly”. And, that there was clearly a discrepancy of foul shots, exceptionally for a dual center attacking team.
But that being said A Spree has no clue…I’m sorry he doesn’t…
Bruins suck. I can’t wait to see them get beat down!