- Joined
- Oct 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,345
- Reaction score
- 2
"We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
- Thread starter OUHoops
- Start date
HeismanWatch
New member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
Hield was taking highly contested shots, so he could have had more open looks.
Cousins has to be at least pedestrian next time and he'll get those.
Hield was taking highly contested shots, so he could have had more open looks.
Cousins has to be at least pedestrian next time and he'll get those.
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
Good article, thanks for sharing. One section really bugged me though -
"It was easy to wonder if Mason had violated a rule by breaking the plane of the sideline, but Hield did not complain. Kruger was a few feet from the play, and said he didn't have a problem with it. This is one of those tiny advantages that coaches seek and exploit. Particularly at KU, with sideline space so cramped, players are instructed to exaggerate their pressure on the in-bounder. If anything, the referee might stop and make the defender move back, but even that is extremely rare."
This is an obvious violation and a shame that it was allowed to affect the outcome of such a terrific basketball game. The reasoning that Buddy & Lon didn't complain to justify it is senseless. Mason is getting credited for intentionally disregarding the rules, that is a shame.
Good article, thanks for sharing. One section really bugged me though -
"It was easy to wonder if Mason had violated a rule by breaking the plane of the sideline, but Hield did not complain. Kruger was a few feet from the play, and said he didn't have a problem with it. This is one of those tiny advantages that coaches seek and exploit. Particularly at KU, with sideline space so cramped, players are instructed to exaggerate their pressure on the in-bounder. If anything, the referee might stop and make the defender move back, but even that is extremely rare."
This is an obvious violation and a shame that it was allowed to affect the outcome of such a terrific basketball game. The reasoning that Buddy & Lon didn't complain to justify it is senseless. Mason is getting credited for intentionally disregarding the rules, that is a shame.
WTSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 11,801
- Reaction score
- 842
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
That might have been the toughest 46 points I've ever seen a guy scored. Nothing was easy. Nothing was wide open. He hit some incredibly tough shots.
That might have been the toughest 46 points I've ever seen a guy scored. Nothing was easy. Nothing was wide open. He hit some incredibly tough shots.
SoonerBounce13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 13,209
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
umm you see that every game almost. maybe it is rare in lawrence kansas but not in any other venue
umm you see that every game almost. maybe it is rare in lawrence kansas but not in any other venue
I thought Buddy was really good since he's been here, but now he's entering the stratosphere of being unbelievable. Dude is a good defender, really good rebounder and is a natural scorer. As I've said before, he's the first guy in a long time that decided to come back for his senior year that improved his stock. Good grief, he's great!
skyvue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 8,481
- Reaction score
- 1,064
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
Buddy complained about the obvious basket interference in the first half; fat lot of good it did him.
Citing whether or not an opposing player complains in assessing whether a home-cooking call is a new low. And Kruger said in the postgame that he didn't know how close Mason had been; Buddy reportedly leaned over and confirmed it for Kruger.
I didn't hear the whole press conference, but I somehow doubt that, once he learned the truth, Kruger actually said he had no problem with it.
Buddy complained about the obvious basket interference in the first half; fat lot of good it did him.
Citing whether or not an opposing player complains in assessing whether a home-cooking call is a new low. And Kruger said in the postgame that he didn't know how close Mason had been; Buddy reportedly leaned over and confirmed it for Kruger.
I didn't hear the whole press conference, but I somehow doubt that, once he learned the truth, Kruger actually said he had no problem with it.
WTSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 11,801
- Reaction score
- 842
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
He probably isn't dwelling on it either. It's one call, or no call, in a game that was 55 minutes long. KU was upset on the Mason foul call on Buddy where he clearly got ball. It's basketball. Things get missed. I don't think I've ever seen an OU team get more beneficial officiating in the Phog than we got last night.
He probably isn't dwelling on it either. It's one call, or no call, in a game that was 55 minutes long. KU was upset on the Mason foul call on Buddy where he clearly got ball. It's basketball. Things get missed. I don't think I've ever seen an OU team get more beneficial officiating in the Phog than we got last night.
skyvue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 8,481
- Reaction score
- 1,064
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
A first-half call (and I agree we got a break on that one) is one thing (especially since we need only point to the obvious basket interference to counter their complaints); a play that should have sent Buddy Hield to the line, with OU down by 1 and just seconds on the clock, is quite another.
And the thing is, it didn't get missed. The official was fully aware of the need for Mason to back off. He told him to do so. But the official didn't have the cojones to follow through with a play stoppage or a technical call when Mason ignored him. That's very different than an inadvertently "missed" call.
I agree that we got 50 minutes of pretty fair treatment, and that it'll likely never go better for us up there in that regard. But the final 5 minutes were so egregiously bad that I can't bring myself to be grateful we didn't get jobbed the whole game. In a game that close, the last five minutes -- in this case, the last 7 seconds -- is plenty long enough to get the job done.
A first-half call (and I agree we got a break on that one) is one thing (especially since we need only point to the obvious basket interference to counter their complaints); a play that should have sent Buddy Hield to the line, with OU down by 1 and just seconds on the clock, is quite another.
And the thing is, it didn't get missed. The official was fully aware of the need for Mason to back off. He told him to do so. But the official didn't have the cojones to follow through with a play stoppage or a technical call when Mason ignored him. That's very different than an inadvertently "missed" call.
I agree that we got 50 minutes of pretty fair treatment, and that it'll likely never go better for us up there in that regard. But the final 5 minutes were so egregiously bad that I can't bring myself to be grateful we didn't get jobbed the whole game. In a game that close, the last five minutes -- in this case, the last 7 seconds -- is plenty long enough to get the job done.
Agreed on the call, but you didn't comment on the fact that Mason wasn't assessed a technical for his subsequent behavior. There's missed calls and then there's game-changing missed calls. I'm not saying any of them met that criteria, but let's not act like we should just accept it as a good thing.
WTSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 11,801
- Reaction score
- 842
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
Guess I just don't consider it game changing. OU was as much to blame for that bad inbounds as KU was. Buddy was flat footed. We didn't set a screen. Heck, there was an inbounds from the same spot earlier in the game where OU barely got the ball inbounds to Woodard down near the baseline. He nearly fell out of bounds himself.
Better execution by OU, and it doesn't matter where Mason is. Dude isn't exactly big anyways. I know Buddy and the guys were tired, but that was more of a factor than Mason crossing the line.
Guess I just don't consider it game changing. OU was as much to blame for that bad inbounds as KU was. Buddy was flat footed. We didn't set a screen. Heck, there was an inbounds from the same spot earlier in the game where OU barely got the ball inbounds to Woodard down near the baseline. He nearly fell out of bounds himself.
Better execution by OU, and it doesn't matter where Mason is. Dude isn't exactly big anyways. I know Buddy and the guys were tired, but that was more of a factor than Mason crossing the line.
bob the nailer
Active member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 367
- Reaction score
- 76
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
So isn't there some type of rule as to how close to the court things like scorers tables can be? Two feet? That's crazy. If there isn't there ought to be
So isn't there some type of rule as to how close to the court things like scorers tables can be? Two feet? That's crazy. If there isn't there ought to be
chuckb
New member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,663
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
I don't think I've ever heard Kruger complain to the media about an official's call and it makes no sense to start now.
I don't think I've ever heard Kruger complain to the media about an official's call and it makes no sense to start now.
skyvue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 8,481
- Reaction score
- 1,064
Re: "We actually did a really good job holding him to 46" | KC Star
I'm not suggesting he'd have complained (or that he should've), but if he felt/knew the non-call was a bad one, I think he'd have taken a neutral stance or deflected the question. He easily might not have had any real sense about the play till he saw it later on tape.
I'm not suggesting he'd have complained (or that he should've), but if he felt/knew the non-call was a bad one, I think he'd have taken a neutral stance or deflected the question. He easily might not have had any real sense about the play till he saw it later on tape.
