**Wisconsin vs. Iowa Basketball - 1/27/20 - 7:30pm - BTN**

Fritz Fequiere

Has a Master's from ISU worth millions
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
-1,353
Hey man I wasn’t the one who brought up my going to ISU. There’s obviously a reason I did.
 

nolookpass

Feels the Bern
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
72,342
Reaction score
-66,688
Fritz were you the same guy that I used to argue with in the lounge on hawkeyereport after you claimed Alondo Tucker would be a great NBA player?
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
5,275
Reaction score
-4,620
Basket counted because the foul wasn't whistled live. They assessed it on a dead ball after video review. It's kind of a weird rule, but that's how it works. But it would be more weird to rewind the clock and undo everything that had happened after a review. What if the dead ball hadn't come until Wisconsin had a possession and both teams had scored? Do you add 50 seconds back to the clock and take both baskets back?
They should probably just give the free throws, but then give the ball back to whoever had it when they stopped the play. That's essentially how it worked for the technical. It was Iowa's ball after a Wisconsin score. Luka gets the T, Wisconsin gets 2 FT's, but then it's Iowa's ball. I'm assuming it was all called correctly last night (per the current rules), but those rules seem inconsistent.
 

Fritz Fequiere

Has a Master's from ISU worth millions
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
-1,353
Fritz were you the same guy that I used to argue with in the lounge on hawkeyereport after you claimed Alondo Tucker would be a great NBA player?
Never been a lounge member but I can imagine myself thinking tucker would be a good pro.
 

CamelTones

Has Shoved A Live Shrimp Up His Ass
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
17,330
Reaction score
-12,162
They should probably just give the free throws, but then give the ball back to whoever had it when they stopped the play. That's essentially how it worked for the technical. It was Iowa's ball after a Wisconsin score. Luka gets the T, Wisconsin gets 2 FT's, but then it's Iowa's ball. I'm assuming it was all called correctly last night (per the current rules), but those rules seem inconsistent.
A flagrant and technical are not the same thing though. A flagrant is a dirty play that should be more severe than telling the ref what you did to his mother.
 

MikeyJoe

Has a Big Head
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
60,758
Reaction score
-52,748
They should probably just give the free throws, but then give the ball back to whoever had it when they stopped the play. That's essentially how it worked for the technical. It was Iowa's ball after a Wisconsin score. Luka gets the T, Wisconsin gets 2 FT's, but then it's Iowa's ball. I'm assuming it was all called correctly last night (per the current rules), but those rules seem inconsistent.
The difference is flagrant vs. technical. By rule a flagrant is 2 shots + the ball. If they had assessed a technical Wisconsin would have retained possession.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
51,624
Reaction score
-45,213
They should probably just give the free throws, but then give the ball back to whoever had it when they stopped the play. That's essentially how it worked for the technical. It was Iowa's ball after a Wisconsin score. Luka gets the T, Wisconsin gets 2 FT's, but then it's Iowa's ball. I'm assuming it was all called correctly last night (per the current rules), but those rules seem inconsistent.
One is a flagrant, dirty play and one was Luka yelling at a Wisconsin turd. There's a difference and I have no problem with being awarded the ball because of an intentionally dirty play that could hurt a player. There's a difference. Where it gets murky is the subjectivity of what is the degree of how dirty/ flagrant a play actually is. That was dirty.
 

nolookpass

Feels the Bern
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
72,342
Reaction score
-66,688
They should probably just give the free throws, but then give the ball back to whoever had it when they stopped the play. That's essentially how it worked for the technical. It was Iowa's ball after a Wisconsin score. Luka gets the T, Wisconsin gets 2 FT's, but then it's Iowa's ball. I'm assuming it was all called correctly last night (per the current rules), but those rules seem inconsistent.
when Luca got that t, I was worried Wisconsin was going to make two free throws then get the ball back with 2.5 seconds left and a chance to hit a 3 for the tie
 

Slidewilly

Independent centrist moderate
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
8,055
Reaction score
-2,279
That game was positively reverse-Dickensian: It was the worst of times, it was the best of times.
 

Slidewilly

Independent centrist moderate
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
8,055
Reaction score
-2,279
One is a flagrant, dirty play and one was Luka yelling at a Wisconsin turd. There's a difference and I have no problem with being awarded the ball because of an intentionally dirty play that could hurt a player. There's a difference. Where it gets murky is the subjectivity of what is the degree of how dirty/ flagrant a play actually is. That was dirty.
It was a cheap shot, and it isn't the first time Davison has done it.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
5,275
Reaction score
-4,620
A flagrant and technical are not the same thing though. A flagrant is a dirty play that should be more severe than telling the ref what you did to his mother.
The difference is flagrant vs. technical. By rule a flagrant is 2 shots + the ball. If they had assessed a technical Wisconsin would have retained possession.
One is a flagrant, dirty play and one was Luka yelling at a Wisconsin turd. There's a difference and I have no problem with being awarded the ball because of an intentionally dirty play that could hurt a player. There's a difference. Where it gets murky is the subjectivity of what is the degree of how dirty/ flagrant a play actually is. That was dirty.
I realize they are different fouls and therefore call differently. I was just using the technical as an example.

I was referring more to the fact that Wisconsin was punished more because the refs didn't call it until the review (and after Wieskamps's bucket). If they call it right away, we get two shots and the ball. Since they called it on the review, we get Wieskamp's bucket, 2 shots and the ball. I was fine with it last night because fuck Wisconsin, but the rule is inconsistent. I'd be pissed if we were on the other side of it.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
51,624
Reaction score
-45,213
I realize they are different fouls and therefore call differently. I was just using the technical as an example.

I was referring more to the fact that Wisconsin was punished more because the refs didn't call it until the review (and after Wieskamps's bucket). If they call it right away, we get two shots and the ball. Since they called it on the review, we get Wieskamp's bucket, 2 shots and the ball. I was fine with it last night because fuck Wisconsin, but the rule is inconsistent. I'd be pissed if we were on the other side of it.
You'd be pissed if Connor gave a Wisconsin player a shot to the nuts?
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
5,275
Reaction score
-4,620
when Luca got that t, I was worried Wisconsin was going to make two free throws then get the ball back with 2.5 seconds left and a chance to hit a 3 for the tie
Yeah, I wasn't sure on that either. I think that use to be the rule (unless I'm just thinking of High School), but I prefer the current rule. A tech shouldn't be more punitive when you are on offense vs defense.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
51,624
Reaction score
-45,213
It'd be fine as long as he got away with it.
Right but you get what I'm saying. If you have a player doing that, it's on the player, not the current rules. Don't want the other team to essentially get three consecutive possessions? Don't be a fuck.
 

Jimmie Dimmick

Dog Crap Litterer
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
100,725
Reaction score
-51,904
I can't help but laugh every time I read the word "horny" in the basketball forum.

I get 2 Live Crew in my head.

Put your lips on my dick, and suck my asshole too
I'm a freak in heat, a dog without warning
My appetite is sex, 'cause me so horny
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
5,275
Reaction score
-4,620
Right but you get what I'm saying. If you have a player doing that, it's on the player, not the current rules. Don't want the other team to essentially get three consecutive possessions? Don't be a fuck.
I get that. Davidson is the one person who could have prevented all of it, so no sympathy for him. I'm just saying the punishment should be the same whether the foul is called immediately or after a review. I realize it was technically the same punishment, but Iowa essentially got 2 extra points the way it went down.
 

nolookpass

Feels the Bern
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
72,342
Reaction score
-66,688
I dislike Wisconsin's style of play a lot but I have to say their coach gave a good interview after the game. Was effusive in his praise of Garza's transformation
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
7,046
Reaction score
-2,061
Waved goodbye to them after he hit the final two free throws. After the horn lets out a huge scream then told them to get the fuck out of his gym.
I keep trying to link a funny erection gif, and it keeps failing. But trust me, this makes me VERY hard.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
51,624
Reaction score
-45,213
I get that. Davidson is the one person who could have prevented all of it, so no sympathy for him. I'm just saying the punishment should be the same whether the foul is called immediately or after a review. I realize it was technically the same punishment, but Iowa essentially got 2 extra points the way it went down.
 

eclone

Former VEISHEA Exec Committee Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
10,827
Reaction score
-9,496
It really felt like, to me anyways, that Wisconsin played their best game, at their shitty ball deflating pace and we played like shit and still beat them at their own game. Plus our boys genuinely dislike those dorks. Good stuff.
Iowa did a good job of pushing the tempo enough and increasing the possessions in the game. Last night there were 70 possessions, exactly what Iowa averages for the year. Wisconsin averages just 62. In their upset over Maryland there were only 56. 70 is the high for the conference season this year. After a bad first 10 minutes, the Iowa offense kicked in despite the bad 3pt shooting, still averaged 0.97 points/possession.

1580229657433.png
 

douglasbader

Was RATT
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
94,292
Reaction score
-59,214
Iowa did a good job of pushing the tempo enough and increasing the possessions in the game. Last night there were 70 possessions, exactly what Iowa averages for the year. Wisconsin averages just 62. In their upset over Maryland there were only 56. 70 is the high for the conference season this year. After a bad first 10 minutes, the Iowa offense kicked in despite the bad 3pt shooting, still averaged 0.97 points/possession.

View attachment 16486
I like seeing those advanced ORtg numbers, shows how far off Garza was from normal and really shows how shitty Connor / Kreiner / Bakari were.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
15,730
Reaction score
-14,280
I just think we are accustomed to seeing Garza get everything to drop near the basket. Yesterday he had more than a couple dance around the rim and out. Still won.
 

eclone

Former VEISHEA Exec Committee Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
10,827
Reaction score
-9,496
Yep, compared to the season averages for the year, Iowa didn't play well, and still pulled off the big win. Really turned it up a notch the last 6 minutes to save themselves.

1580230037389.png
 

douglasbader

Was RATT
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
94,292
Reaction score
-59,214
I just think we are accustomed to seeing Garza get everything to drop near the basket. Yesterday he had more than a couple dance around the rim and out. Still won.
I thought Wisconsin defended him as well as they could. They are obviously a pretty disciplined and smart team and even though the crowd was screaming for fouls, they weren't fouling him.
 
Top