• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Observations from Section 107

Coppin State observations:

1. For a team that has consistently played outstanding perimeter D, what in the world has happened to the Buckeyes? The execrable failed hedges and failures to react were not going to hurt us much against this feeble Coppin team, but things better improve quickly once conference play begins. This is really shocking to me, since Matta teams have always played fine perimeter defense. We have regressed greatly in this area since Greg Oden joined the team.

2. Not really very concerned about our offense. But I am left wondering why DaeQuan Cook gets no more minutes than he does. It's not a problem with his D; that has improved immeasurably since the beginning of the season. His intensity is sorely needed IMO.

3. Rebounding with one hand is clearly a problem for Greg. Though he was able to dominate the much smaller Coppin team, he will find the sledding much tougher against the likes of Brian Butch. His effort is inspiring, though.

4. Officiating was interesting. The goal-tend call on Oden on the 3-point attempt was truly one of the worst basketball calls I have ever witnessed. Refs appear to have been recruited at the local sheltered workshop.

5. Another great game by Mike Conley. I hope he stays at least one more year. (!)

I really do love this team, but it must improve greatly on defense if it is to make the final 4. What a thing, though, to be critical of issues that could only interfere with a national championship!
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;700908; said:
4. Officiating was interesting. The goal-tend call on Oden on the 3-point attempt was truly one of the worst basketball calls I have ever witnessed. Refs appear to have been recruited at the local sheltered workshop.
could you or someone else explain this to someone who didn't get to watch the game? i can't imagine anything else but an obvious block or an obvious goaltend of a three-point shot.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;700916; said:
could you or someone else explain this to someone who didn't get to watch the game? i can't imagine anything else but an obvious block or an obvious goaltend of a three-point shot.

What happened was as Oden was going up to reach for the Rebound he hit the rim on accident on his way up. Even know the ball was clearly coming off the rim it was basket interference and it happened on a 3 point shot therefore giving them 3 points.
 
Upvote 0
A picture's worth 1000 words...

14405.jpg
 
Upvote 0
From NCAA rules -
Section 16. Basket Interference and Goaltending


Art. 1. A player shall commit neither basket interference nor goaltending.

Art. 2. The ball shall be considered to be within the basket when any part
of the ball is below the cylinder and the level of the ring.

Art. 3. A player may have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when this
contact continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, in such action,
the player touches the basket.

Section 17. Basket-Interference and Goaltending Penalties

Art. 1. When the violation is at the basket of the opponent of the offending
player, the offended team shall be awarded:
a. One point for basket interference or one point and an indirect
technical foul for goaltending when, during a free throw, the ball
is on its upward or downward flight.
b.Two points when during a two-point field-goal try.
c. Three points when during a three-point field-goal try.
Art. 2. The crediting of the score and subsequent procedure shall be the
same as when the awarded score results from the ball going through the
basket, except that the official shall hand/bounce the ball to a player of
the team entitled to the throw-in.
Art. 3. When the violation is at a team?s own basket, no points shall be
scored and the ball shall be awarded to the offended team at a designated
spot nearest to where the violation occurred.
A.R. 28.



B1 touches the ball while a throw-in is in the cylinder. RULING: Basket interference.

Team A shall be awarded two points. Team B shall be awarded the ball for a
throw-in, as after a goal scored, except that an official shall hand the ball to a player of
Team B and the player or a teammate shall make the throw-in. (See Rule 7-5.1.)
A.R. 29.



The ball is in flight during a three-point field-goal try by A1 when a period

expires. After the expiration of time and while the ball is rolling on the ring, B1 taps it into the basket. RULING: Basket interference by B1. Three points shall be awarded to A1 because of the basket interference.
A.R. 30.



The ball enters the basket during a field-goal try by A1. Before the ball is in flight for the try, A1 is fouled. A2 touches the ring while the ball is in the basket. RULING: Basket interference on A2. The goal shall be canceled. A1 shall be awarded two free throws because of the foul.

A.R. 31.



A1 throws a ball that enters the basket from below, which (a) enters the cylinder above the ring; (b) is deflected by B1 and enters the cylinder above the ring; or (c) falls back through the bottom of the net untouched. RULING: (a) A1 has violated. (b) B1 has violated since the ball completely passed by the ring, which is the base of the cylinder.

(c) After the ball clears the net, it remains live.
Art. 4. When the violation results from touching the ball while it is in
the basket after entering from below, no points shall be scored and the
ball shall be awarded to the opponent at a designated spot nearest to
where the violation occurred.
Art. 5. When there is a violation by both teams, play shall be resumed by
awarding the ball to the team entitled to the alternating-possession throwin
at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.


None of the above has any relationship whatever with what Greg Oden did on the referenced play.

 
Upvote 0
Observations of the Tennessee game:

1. It is amazing how Greg Oden's ability to grasp the basketball has improved over the past couple of weeks. His rebounding is phenomenal as a result.

2. Othello Hunter remains one of the finest offensive rebounders the Bucks have had in recent memory.

3. Mike Conley had a poor game. Granted his shot came along, and no one is as happy to see that as I am. But 20 turnovers as a team? That belongs at the feet of the point guard. He'll snap back, though.

4. We are unlikely again this season to see a press as effective as Tennessee's. Or so I hope.

5. Against Tennessee we became the exact opposite of a perimeter-oriented team. Interesting.

6. I had heard that Bruce Pearl was the most-loathed coach in the nation (by his peers), but seeing Matta pointedly avoid looking at or greeting Pearl at the outset of the game was brutal. No handshake at the end, either, that I saw.

7. Tennessee is a fine team. I think this game proved that other teams will get up as high as a kite to play the Buckeyes, and so our record may look a little less imposing as a result. I truly think we are a top-5 team, regardless of how close this game was (and how not-close the game against the Gators was :wink2: ).
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top