GT - Clemson

franklinjacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
297
Can someone confirm that the call on Heyward? The commentator seemed to overreact until he saw the replay. There were many key moments/plays that led to our loss but that was the biggest one in my opinion and has left me with a more sour taste in my mouth than Miller's botched dunk, which was extraordinary to say the least. I am assuming that it is viewed as a moving screen but it seemed so "bang-bang" to blow a whistle on. Ultimately we had a few calls go our way and they definitely did too, but I am very bitter about the Heyward Handoff
I'm not exactly sure how the rules go on this situation, but it looked like both players were moving and were equally responsible for the contact (I think the commentator might have called it a charge), but Corey is so stout, the Clemson player bounced off of him. My best guess is that the ref called it a moving screen.
 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Messages
9,084
Location
Marietta, GA
Dang homey! Shots fired, shots fired. Honestly, if you asked me to describe how a player would look if he knew he wasn't gonna be back next year he'd pretty match that description to a T.

That said, if he gets "right" he'll be a huge asset to the team. So I'll just root for him to get to work and get back to playing like a guy trying to earn a spot rather than appearing to play like a guy looking for a soft place to lay down.

Also, I've resolved to stop bashing our coach so I can't tell @awbuzz how misguided his sarcasm is.

Thanks ;)
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
13,410
Farnham on ESPN said the foul was a function of Heyward having 1 shoulder fronting the other, as opposed to being squarely set when they collided. That slight difference caused the foul. Kinda bunk to be calling that then when there were plenty of other swallowed whistles.
 

Omahajacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
57
Farnham on ESPN said the foul was a function of Heyward having 1 shoulder fronting the other, as opposed to being squarely set when they collided. That slight difference caused the foul. Kinda bunk to be calling that then when there were plenty of other swallowed whistles.
That's right, I remember him saying it was because of his shoulder. I guess that portrays to refs that heyward saw the contact coming and since the the collision persisted, heyward was to blame? I think him "turning his shoulder" was his last second reaction/instinct to avoid the collision. Maybe I am wrong and bias
 

kg01

Get-Bak! Coach
Featured Member
Messages
11,393
Location
Atlanta
Farnham on ESPN said the foul was a function of Heyward having 1 shoulder fronting the other, as opposed to being squarely set when they collided. That slight difference caused the foul. Kinda bunk to be calling that then when there were plenty of other swallowed whistles.

Agree. They could call that on any one of those handoffs. IIRC the guy wasn't significantly impeded either. It's almost like the guy made up his mind that he was going to call it. Now, I'm not a conspiracy nut on this so I'm not suggesting anything. It could be just as Farnham said. The shoulder position precipitated an automatic call. IMO no advantage was gained so a no-call was probably the right outcome. I'm clearly biased tho so TIFWIW.
 

Rodney Kent

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
558
Location
McDonough, GA
Same old, Same old. I place this loss squarely on the coach. I remember the coach stating that his team needed to learn to defend better in the latter part of the game. I did not watch any games this year until the Syracuse-Tech game where this appeared to happen. It happened again in the Boston College game, and again against Clemson. As I watched the games, I have come to the conclusion that it is not the matter of the defense as much as the coaches neglect to have his guards shooting the two or threes from outside.

These teams see Tech play a tight game insided on offense and they were getting a lot of offensive rebounds. Each time (in the 3 games) when Tech had a comfortable lead with a short time on the clock, the opposition pulled their defenders in close to get the rebounds and dared Tech to shoot from outside. The Tech guards continued to try to take the ball to the hoop or pass it inside when the defense was stacked against it. When they did get foul shots, they would miss them. This was definitely the coache's fault for not demanding the guards to shoot from the outside. If the coach had sent this message to his players, he would also tell the center and forwards to understand that the shots would come from the outside, and for them to be ready to rebound any offensive missed shots. Had they shot from the outside and hit a few shots, it would have stretched their lead instead of letting the opposition catch up with them.

When the defense pulls in and dares the offense to either pass inside or drive for the hoop, the offensive guards must be ready when the ball hits their hands and take shots from the outside. It is the continued philosophy of the coach to take it inside that is the problem, not the defense. When opposition's defense knows they have Tech's offense stymied by this tactic, it gives the hope that they can overcome Tech's lead and they do. In all three games the problem was with the coache's philosophy rather than poor defense by Tech.
 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Messages
9,084
Location
Marietta, GA
Last night was a long disappoint night... no way to sugar coat it.
Part of the problem is Heyward's lack of shooting prowess. Granted he hit a 3 last night, but he just doesn't seem to ever want to pull the trigger. Maybe he can't shoot woth a hill of beans and CBG has coached him to make a pass instead and CH does that...
Also, wish we had more information regarding Poole's lack of playing time.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,787
Location
Poquoson Virginia
Yea but losing to Duke and losing to Clemson are 2 totally diff. Animals. Clemson sucks, Duke doesnt. We got outsmarted and out hustled last night. I hope Tadric IS that guy next year.
Clemson has earned a #57 ranking this year. http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/clemson-tigers

We are #101. Taking Clemson to OT was good, winning would have been a lot better.

Duke is #13. Duke will destroy Clemson. Duke would have destroyed us. Not a reason for us not to beat Clemson, but now the season is mercifully over. I hope we do a lot better next year. (like #30-40)
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
We started the game turning them over like crazy but didn't score, shooting less than 20% for the first 10-15 min.
 

Ggee87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,046
Location
Douglasville, Georgia
Same old, Same old. I place this loss squarely on the coach. I remember the coach stating that his team needed to learn to defend better in the latter part of the game. I did not watch any games this year until the Syracuse-Tech game where this appeared to happen. It happened again in the Boston College game, and again against Clemson. As I watched the games, I have come to the conclusion that it is not the matter of the defense as much as the coaches neglect to have his guards shooting the two or threes from outside.

These teams see Tech play a tight game insided on offense and they were getting a lot of offensive rebounds. Each time (in the 3 games) when Tech had a comfortable lead with a short time on the clock, the opposition pulled their defenders in close to get the rebounds and dared Tech to shoot from outside. The Tech guards continued to try to take the ball to the hoop or pass it inside when the defense was stacked against it. When they did get foul shots, they would miss them. This was definitely the coache's fault for not demanding the guards to shoot from the outside. If the coach had sent this message to his players, he would also tell the center and forwards to understand that the shots would come from the outside, and for them to be ready to rebound any offensive missed shots. Had they shot from the outside and hit a few shots, it would have stretched their lead instead of letting the opposition catch up with them.

When the defense pulls in and dares the offense to either pass inside or drive for the hoop, the offensive guards must be ready when the ball hits their hands and take shots from the outside. It is the continued philosophy of the coach to take it inside that is the problem, not the defense. When opposition's defense knows they have Tech's offense stymied by this tactic, it gives the hope that they can overcome Tech's lead and they do. In all three games the problem was with the coache's philosophy rather than poor defense by Tech.
Exactly what ive been saying. At those points in the game the refs arent going to call a foul when ur just driving.to get a foul called. Theyve shown that time and time.again. None of our guards have quick triggers and they hesitate every time they catch the ball. Its like CBG has been coaching them to only shoot after doing this or that. When they cant do that then they just wing it and either get a TO or a no call on the drive. Our defese is pretty solid but thats not what i would like to see. I want pressure D picked up at halfcourt. Overplaying everything and dare them to lob over the top or make the backdoor passes.
 

PowderSpringsJacket88

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
1,034
Location
West Cobb
Can someone confirm that the call on Heyward? The commentator seemed to overreact until he saw the replay. There were many key moments/plays that led to our loss but that was the biggest one in my opinion and has left me with a more sour taste in my mouth than Miller's botched dunk, which was extraordinary to say the least. I am assuming that it is viewed as a moving screen but it seemed so "bang-bang" to blow a whistle on. Ultimately we had a few calls go our way and they definitely did too, but I am very bitter about the Heyward Handoff
Correct call but not the time to make that call. It would have not hurt Clemson in any way by letting them play. Ref's should let them play through that type of foul with less than 30 seconds left with the game on the line..Okay call with horrible timing.
 

PowderSpringsJacket88

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
1,034
Location
West Cobb
Dang homey! Shots fired, shots fired. Honestly, if you asked me to describe how a player would look if he knew he wasn't gonna be back next year he'd pretty match that description to a T.

That said, if he gets "right" he'll be a huge asset to the team. So I'll just root for him to get to work and get back to playing like a guy trying to earn a spot rather than appearing to play like a guy looking for a soft place to lay down.

Also, I've resolved to stop bashing our coach so I can't tell @awbuzz how misguided his sarcasm is.
You probably have the right mindset. It would be nice if he could improve and come off the bench next year and hit some shots. However, if we can find someone with some potential then I am okay with him moving on.
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
13,410
We already have too many open spots to be filled. Can't really afford for him to move on, nor do I think should he move on.

There's something not steady going on with him. We know he can stroke it and, honestly, he does try on defense, but he is in a slower gear this year. A scenario I'm hoping for is that Tadric comes in and wins the starting spot and Chris goes to the bench as a spark sixth man. It could relieve any sort of mental pressure and snap him back in to the player I think we'd all like to see him become.
 

jeffgt14

We Don't? Suck
Messages
5,507
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
If it counts for anything, Clemson almost did the same thing to Duke they did to us.

On a side note, I find it funny that Rodney Hood did the exact same thing at the end of the game that Golden did against BC at the end of regulation and Hood got the foul call to go to the line. (n)
 

techgrad

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
83
If it counts for anything, Clemson almost did the same thing to Duke they did to us.

On a side note, I find it funny that Rodney Hood did the exact same thing at the end of the game that Golden did against BC at the end of regulation and Hood got the foul call to go to the line. (n)
Exactly. And if it were us defending Rod Hall on that last play, they would've called a foul on us.
 

Ggee87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,046
Location
Douglasville, Georgia
Exactly. And if it were us defending Rod Hall on that last play, they would've called a foul on us.
Exactly. I have a gut feeling that sports may be rigged to a point. Not completely but atleast influenced through referees. Big business. Always follow the money. Doesnt make it any less enjoyable to me... I just know to take the outcome with a grain of salt if its close down the stretch.
 

techgrad

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
83
Exactly. I have a gut feeling that sports may be rigged to a point. Not completely but atleast influenced through referees. Big business. Always follow the money. Doesnt make it any less enjoyable to me... I just know to take the outcome with a grain of salt if its close down the stretch.
And notice no ESPN replay on the Hood call. That's odd to say the least.
 
Top