Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 8352405)

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 8352915)

Thoughts on the game:

1) I have a golden tongue. Speaking mongrel Spanish, I managed to convince the sports director of my resort in Mexico to open up the Dance Club early and play the game on the big screen.

2) How big of a bitch is Jeff Withey? He got shut down by a 6-5 shooting guard. He also has some pretty severe Tim Duncan syndrome, apparently (in that the first whistle that goes against him that he agrees with will be the first).

3) Have watched the replay on Taylor/Dixon MULTIPLE times. I have long hated the rule in college basketball player that allows a defender moving backwards to take a charge if they beat a ballhandler to the spot, but that's what happened there. It is not required to be set in the traditional completely motion-less, feet planted shoulder-width apart, vertical arms stance to draw a charge in that situation.

This is a great exhibition of that rule. Still shots in basketball are great for some things (was it a 3, did the ball get off, was someone out of bounds). They are not consistent when it comes to body-to-body contact of D-1 quick-twitch athletes. I don't care what the still of Dixon shows. Watch the replay. He moved diagonally, beating Taylor to the spot. Taylor then initiates contact with his forearm into the chest of the defender. That's pretty close to textbook definition of how a defender can draw a charge there.

4) Have watched the replay on Moore/Robinson multiple times. Don't want to hear anything about that charge call (though it was definitely a close call, it is not the awful call I thought it was when I first saw it). Moore beat Robinson to that spot, and Robinson initiated the contact.

Also, if you want to moan and complain about that call and watch the replay, you'll notice that Robinson violated the jump stop rule on that play (traveling well before the contact was initiated). He gathered the ball, took a skip, jump stopped (which really can be called a travel right there), landing on his LEFT foot first, and then used his RIGHT foot as his pivot foot. That's a travel. When jump stopping, if one foot lands before the other, that foot is the pivot foot.

5) Loved watching Taylor channel Christian Moody on the FTs, almost as watching Conor Teahan get abused by Marcus Denmon (which should remind Conor why he isn't allowed to 'woof' it on the basketball court).

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 8352935)

Just curious, why do you not think a defender should be able to take a charge while moving backwards? The defender has (and should have) just as much right to the spot as the offensive player.

Look at it in reverse. If the dribbler is slowly backing up and the defender runs through him at full speed, its an obvious foul. Just because a guy has the ball doesn't mean he should get to bulldog players.

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 8352791)

Look where Taylor's front foot is. It's behind Dixon. Taylor went right through Dixon. He didn't lean forward to cheat into position. He braced himself because he was about to get trucked.

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8352959)

Meh, I think it's a no-call at best. Dixon isn't allowed to lean into contact, regardless of whether or not he's "bracing" himself. Taylor is trying to step t his right, around him, and Dixon is leaning to his left to try and block him off. You can't do that. And his feet are clearly not set. Just because he wasn't TRYING to foul doesn't mean it isn't a foul.

On the flip side, Taylor did go in a bit out of control, and didn't do enough to avoid contact. They fouled each other. Refs should have just let that one go.

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8352823)

That's a still...look at the actual play, not just one split-second of it ...it was a clear charge

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 8352989)

I re-watched the game on ESPNU after the SB last night and when you're not at a bar and watching it for particular moments, they look a little different.

The charge on Taylor is clear as day. The more I watched that one, the more obvious it became. That was absolutely textbook defense on a committed player. To try to argue that this wasn't a clear charge just destroys someones credibility. It would've been called a charge on any neutral site in the nation. Go in real time or slow it down; immaterial - it's a charge.

The Robinson one, OTOH, was much closer as you watch the whole play. If I were a completely disinterested fan, I'd probably say it should've been a no-call in that situation and with those stakes. How the game had gone to that point, I think you could definitely justify the official just swallowing his whistle.

That said, from a textbook standpoint, I think it was a charge. Moore had his feet set and he had his position. Robinson charged into the lane and used his elbow and Moore's body to roll off the defender and improve his shot attempt. To play that offensive series 'clean', Robinson would've had to have stopped his forward momentum and taken a much tougher shot. He would probably needed to pick up his dribble as well. In other words, Moore did a nice job of defending that play and Robinson had to body him up and elbow him to get himself free for that easy put up.

That's exactly what we have charging violations for - to reward the defender for putting himself in a spot where he can stop the offensive player's drive. Moore did exactly that and he held his ground (as he is entitled). Without bodying into him and getting that elbow into his chest, Robinson wasn't going to have nearly that easy a shot attempt, if he even got a clean attempt at all.

The way the game was called and at that point in the game, I could see the official letting it go. At the same time - the rules say that's a charge. As a Missouri fan, I'd have been pretty pissed had they let Robinson use his body to create a shot like that.

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla (Post 8353041)

If the Robinson charge had been a no-call, wouldn't the outcome have been the same? Missouri got the rebound.

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 8353071)

So we get shipped to California as a reward for being a 1 seed? Sounds right.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 8353072)

Silock's right, he hit it.

Then again, that's part of the reason I'm not going to apologize for it being called. If he doesn't body/roll off a set defender in Steve Moore, he doesn't get into position to hit that shot. His drive had been sealed off by Moore and he had not choice but to either pick up his drive and settle for a set shot, or body Moore up and position himself for a makeable shot.

He chose the latter, but the latter's technically against the rules.

Had he missed the shot, it certainly would've been a no-harm/no foul situation. But he clearly used Moore's body and the running elbow to put himself in a position to make the shot. There was an unquestioned 'harm' that came from his decision. So for KU fans to say that it shouldn't have been called and that it was a 5- point swing is really disingenuous - he doesn't make that shot but/for the illegal contact. And it's flat out insane to claim that they should've called a foul on Moore instead when Moore had clearly established his position.