GT / Louisville

senoiajacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,130
Jose is one of the craftiest guards I've seen and is a great finisher. He uses his body and alters his dribble as good as the best. Our other guards have a hard time finishing.
He is much improved at scoring in the paint (which is different than finishing at the rim, IMHO, but just as effective). Freshman & early sophomore years I used to cringe when he would go In there, but he has developed a nice arsenal of effective moves! I wouldn’t put him in the category as “one of the best”, but I don’t watch as much basketball as I used to, so maybe my frame of reference is skewed.
 

senoiajacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,130
The production by the ACCN was an abomination. Rarely did they show interesting replays and the commentary was pathetic. Frequently there would be a good play or debatable foul call and they would revert back to a replay from earlier in the game of an uneventful play.
What annoyed me the must was when they had the split frame with live action and Nowra on the bench. They did it at least twice. Who wants to watch a guy watching the game from the bench?
 

senoiajacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,130
They are doubling our bigs because we are not a good outside shooting team.
Yes, I realize that. However, with devoe, parham, and Jose of late, i still contend it should be an opportunity. Those guys are all capable of hitting in the high thirties to forty % range from 3
 

GTbball2016

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,108
He is much improved at scoring in the paint (which is different than finishing at the rim, IMHO, but just as effective). Freshman & early sophomore years I used to cringe when he would go In there, but he has developed a nice arsenal of effective moves! I wouldn’t put him in the category as “one of the best”, but I don’t watch as much basketball as I used to, so maybe my frame of reference is skewed.

Jack was the best finishing point guard in GT history. He had a great sense of angles.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,913
Location
Oriental, NC
Spatola played at Army under K, was on K’s staff at Duke, and married K’s daughter. No wonder we don’t like him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Spatola started at Army for four years, 1999-2002. Unless K was coaching two teams those seasons, Spatola did not play under him. He was a Duke assistant after his military stent, so that is probably where he met K's daughter.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
996
What annoyed me the must was when they had the split frame with live action and Nowra on the bench. They did it at least twice. Who wants to watch a guy watching the game from the bench?
That was amazing! I was like, WTF?
I guess the director was one of those "sports fans" that isn't really interested in the actual competition but more into the "human interest" aspects of sport. Nwora is the star so he must be on camera. And the camera might catch the human drama of a star player that is having a tough game while he sits on the bench. It is human drama, I tell ya. HUMAN DRAMA. Who cares about the silly game!

Spatola was unforgivably bad as the color man. There are true analysts who use their expertise and insight to explain what is going on in the game, why the official made a call, why a player or coach made a decision. Then there was this guy who obviously had a rigid expectation about how that game was supposed to go, and as the game progressed and his expectations were being dashed, he just started to criticize the officials ("That was a BAD call!") or Louisville ("I don't understand why Nwora isn't getting touches?"). It is really bad for fans of the underdog because for guys like Spatola the underdog team doesn't even really exist except in the "Washington Generals" sort of way, as anonymous objects for Louisville to throttle. It comes off as; if Louisville wins, it is reinforcement of a stable world order. If Louisville loses it is ONLY because Louisville LOST because of bad play and not because of anything that GT did. Spatoloa came across that way FAR too often for a professional.
 

BeeRBee

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
236
No. The initial call was goaltending and that killed the live ball. The call was late and that made it look like the refs had taken points off the board. They got it right.
According to Mark Bradley, Cris Mack said “I thought Jamie Luckie did a great job. He called goaltend specifically so he could go to the monitor. That’s a heck of an official who can do that.”

I think one official saw it as a clean block, and Luckie while not necessarily seeing a goaltend made a late call so he could review it and check. I’m not sure I agree with Mack - I thought officials were taught only to call what they actually saw.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,260
For the most part, I don’t think our guards are capable of finishing at the rim. Jose will get a “teardrop” regularly, but basically Jose & bubba don’t have the stature, and devoe doesn’t have the quickness to regularly beat a man of the dribble to get the initial separation. Usher could be that guy but often times is out of control on that type of play.
According to Mark Bradley, Cris Mack said “I thought Jamie Luckie did a great job. He called goaltend specifically so he could go to the monitor. That’s a heck of an official who can do that.”

I think one official saw it as a clean block, and Luckie while not necessarily seeing a goaltend made a late call so he could review it and check. I’m not sure I agree with Mack - I thought officials were taught only to call what they actually saw.

To my understanding that is not what replay was designed to do. They are supposed to call what they see and then confirm. Not use replay to make the call. That cost us points. Replay shouldn't stop the game - only a real call should
 
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
To my understanding that is not what replay was designed to do. They are supposed to call what they see and then confirm. Not use replay to make the call. That cost us points. Replay shouldn't stop the game - only a real call should
If they wanted a replay, it could have been done at the completion of the play, which was a 2-point basket for us. Instead, they had initially let play continue and then halted it midway through in order to review it. On one hand I guess I can see doing that, but it sure didn't look right to do it that way.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,913
Location
Oriental, NC
If they wanted a replay, it could have been done at the completion of the play, which was a 2-point basket for us. Instead, they had initially let play continue and then halted it midway through in order to review it. On one hand I guess I can see doing that, but it sure didn't look right to do it that way.
By rule, a goal tending or basket interference call creates a dead ball situation. The refs did not stop play to review the call. They reviewed the call because they did not agree that it was a goal tend. It was already a dead ball and the basket we scored was never going to be allowed. I thought the call was late, but the refs got it right.
 
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
By rule, a goal tending or basket interference call creates a dead ball situation. The refs did not stop play to review the call. They reviewed the call because they did not agree that it was a goal tend. It was already a dead ball and the basket we scored was never going to be allowed. I thought the call was late, but the refs got it right.
I understand what you are saying, but the goal tending call wasn't actually made until we were halfway back down the court with the ball. If the two refs had made opposite calls when it happened, yes, the play should have been stopped, but the initial and ONLY call was that play should continue.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,260
By rule, a goal tending or basket interference call creates a dead ball situation. The refs did not stop play to review the call. They reviewed the call because they did not agree that it was a goal tend. It was already a dead ball and the basket we scored was never going to be allowed. I thought the call was late, but the refs got it right.

Per the quote from Chris Mack they made the call to review the play. If that is true it goes against the reason for replay.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,913
Location
Oriental, NC
Per the quote from Chris Mack they made the call to review the play. If that is true it goes against the reason for replay.
They cannot stop a live ball for a review. It has to be a dead ball situation, so Chris Mack is wrong or was misquoted.

There is no call for play on. The only call made (late for sure) was a goal tend.
 

senoiajacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,130
They cannot stop a live ball for a review. It has to be a dead ball situation, so Chris Mack is wrong or was misquoted.

There is no call for play on. The only call made (late for sure) was a goal tend.
No, that is what Mack said. What he meant was that the official “thought” it could have been goal tending but wasn’t sure, and knew the only way to review it was to call it to kill the play & then review it. That’s some booty cheddar and shouldn’t be called. As someone said before, replay is for confirming a call that was made. If he didn’t call it initially then he should have let it go.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,913
Location
Oriental, NC
No, that is what Mack said. What he meant was that the official “thought” it could have been goal tending but wasn’t sure, and knew the only way to review it was to call it to kill the play & then review it. That’s some booty cheddar and shouldn’t be called. As someone said before, replay is for confirming a call that was made. If he didn’t call it initially then he should have let it go.
I have not seen or heard anything to confirm or refute what you are saying. If the ref said he thought it might be a goal tend and stopped the play to review, he should be barred from officiating. But, I doubt he said that.
 

senoiajacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,130
I have not seen or heard anything to confirm or refute what you are saying. If the ref said he thought it might be a goal tend and stopped the play to review, he should be barred from officiating. But, I doubt he said that.
I have not heard that the ref said it directly. It came from the post game interview with Chris Mack. He said “he called goaltending specifically so he could go to the monitor and review it”. The video link is on page 7, it’s at the 3:45 mark. I would assume the only way he knew that for sure is the ref told him?
 

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,501
Location
Maine
I was asked about this game so many times this week. What do you say? Pastner is a solid X’s and O’s And It hits sometimes, right? He will win a game he has no business winning and he will lose against Ball State.

I honestly think that in 25 years we are going to see him be a 15x Ohio Valley champ or something such as. The guy has the mind, he’s just not an ACC guy or an Atlanta guy
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
996
The guy has the mind, he’s just not an ACC guy or an Atlanta guy

I'm not sure I agree with this at all. I don't think he came into the job ready to be an ACC coach. And I don't think he is a guy that can take a program on his shoulders and dominate the ACC. On the other hand, He does appear good enough that if he has good support from his AD (staff budget) and can get a good staff with a least one stud assistant (e.g., Charlton Young, Jonas Hayes), then I think he is fully able to succeed here. He is flexible, hard working and his schemes and approaches are sound.

He got knocked down pretty good in year two (Bell, LaBarrie, Lammers & Okogie) but the talent level of the program is not bad coming out of all that. My perception is that there is promise here and that too many Tech fans have an unreasonably negative outlook regarding this coach.
 
Top