If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Watch Kentucky subtly switch the free throw shooter; Duke may suck, but Kentucky cheats   (johnclay.bloginky.com) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, Kentucky, free throws  
•       •       •

2957 clicks; posted to Sports » on 30 Dec 2012 at 8:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-30 06:14:03 PM
The official play by play of the game indicates a foul on Smith at the 1:05 mark, followed by a made free throw and a missed free throw by Poythress. There is no mention of Noel.
 
2012-12-30 06:18:47 PM
Looked to my like 22 got fouled.  So...this is nothing.
 
2012-12-30 06:57:24 PM
The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.
 
2012-12-30 07:06:04 PM
When your team does it, it's gamesmanship. When the other team does it, it's cheating

/of course, i say this without clicking the link
 
2012-12-30 07:09:26 PM

imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.


Not according to the official.
 
2012-12-30 07:26:36 PM

cmunic8r99: Not according to the official.


Well I think we can agree that it's pretty difficult to commit a reach-in on someone standing behind you. Either way, that was a terribly officiated game on both sides. One minute they were letting them beat the hell out of each other, the next minute they're calling anticipation fouls.
 
2012-12-30 08:07:47 PM

imapirate: cmunic8r99: Not according to the official.

Well I think we can agree that it's pretty difficult to commit a reach-in on someone standing behind you. Either way, that was a terribly officiated game on both sides. One minute they were letting them beat the hell out of each other, the next minute they're calling anticipation fouls.


it was pretty bad, but you can't fault the players or coach for the ref telling Poythress to shoot the free throws.
 
2012-12-30 08:25:41 PM
that's on the refs....non-story
 
2012-12-30 08:38:21 PM
The refs in that game were bad. Only reason Kentucky was in it at the end were some ticky-tack fouls on Louisville's starting backcourt.
 
2012-12-30 08:43:13 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The refs in that game were bad. Only reason Kentucky was in it at the end were some ticky-tack fouls on Louisville's starting backcourt.


Not to mention Siva's phantom 5th foul. He didn't even get near that guy.

/hell of a shot though
//refs were farking awful to both teams
///go cards
 
2012-12-30 08:45:09 PM
Nevermind. Just Yahoo mailing it in. 
Correct player took the shots.

And it's on the refs to make the call then immediately relay the foul & player number to the scorekeeper's table. Even if the wrong player takes the shots an official at the table can correct it.

/moving on
 
2012-12-30 08:58:26 PM

imapirate: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The refs in that game were bad. Only reason Kentucky was in it at the end were some ticky-tack fouls on Louisville's starting backcourt.

Not to mention Siva's phantom 5th foul. He didn't even get near that guy.

/hell of a shot though
//refs were farking awful to both teams
///go cards


That was a make-up call for their no-call of Dieng's fifth.
 
2012-12-30 09:20:23 PM
I'm going to need a motive before I believe there were any shenanigans. Noel is a shiatty free throw shooter but Poythress is no great shakes either, at .642 for the season. The expected additional points from this move would be like 0.2. Maybe in the final minute of a close game you take whatever advantage you can get, but in the first half? Not even worth it.
 
2012-12-30 11:31:18 PM

cmunic8r99: imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.

Not according to the official.


You do realize the "official" in the title of that article is a UK representative, not the official. As for the ref, he only put Poythress at the line after UK's bench "argued to the officials" that Noel should be the shooter. I'm not sure it counts as cheating, but don't pretend that (1) it wasn't a mistake to UK's benefit, and (2) it wasn't UK pushing for the mistake.
 
2012-12-30 11:48:24 PM

boyofd: cmunic8r99: imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.

Not according to the official.

You do realize the "official" in the title of that article is a UK representative, not the official.


You do realize the "official" mentioned four different times in the article I linked is the referee that told the official scorer that Poythress was supposed to be shooting:

FTFA:
UK merely sent the player to the line who officials deemed was supposed to be the shooter after the UK bench argued that Poythress, not Nerlens Noel had been fouled on a play with 1:05 to go...

UK associate athletic director DeWayne Peevy said in a phone interview Sunday that UK's bench argued to officials after the whistle that Poythress should be the foul shooter on the play, that the officials concurred and acknowledged to the scorer's table that "No. 22" (Poythress' number) would be the shooter...

"As I recall, there was some confusion over who the shooter was between Nerlens Noel and Alex Poythress. I know our bench was arguing that No. 22 was the shooter, and the official acknowledged it to the table that '22' was the shooter. And I didn't really think much more of it after that."
 
2012-12-31 12:53:02 AM

cmunic8r99: boyofd: cmunic8r99: imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.

Not according to the official.

You do realize the "official" in the title of that article is a UK representative, not the official.

You do realize the "official" mentioned four different times in the article I linked is the referee that told the official scorer that Poythress was supposed to be shooting:

FTFA:
UK merely sent the player to the line who officials deemed was supposed to be the shooter after the UK bench argued that Poythress, not Nerlens Noel had been fouled on a play with 1:05 to go...

UK associate athletic director DeWayne Peevy said in a phone interview Sunday that UK's bench argued to officials after the whistle that Poythress should be the foul shooter on the play, that the officials concurred and acknowledged to the scorer's table that "No. 22" (Poythress' number) would be the shooter...

"As I recall, there was some confusion over who the shooter was between Nerlens Noel and Alex Poythress. I know our bench was arguing that No. 22 was the shooter, and the official acknowledged it to the table that '22' was the shooter. And I didn't really think much more of it after that."


Well unless you're blind and completely missed the ref pointing to the baseline area at the beginning when the foil was called, seems to be biatching for no reason on this point
 
2012-12-31 01:12:17 AM
Why didn't the coach throw a challenge flag?
 
2012-12-31 01:53:31 AM

Mark Ratner: Why didn't the coach throw a challenge flag?


It's basketball: the coaches throw hissy-fits
 
2012-12-31 02:34:16 AM

cmunic8r99: boyofd: cmunic8r99: imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.

Not according to the official.

You do realize the "official" in the title of that article is a UK representative, not the official.

You do realize the "official" mentioned four different times in the article I linked is the referee that told the official scorer that Poythress was supposed to be shooting:

FTFA:
UK merely sent the player to the line who officials deemed was supposed to be the shooter after the UK bench argued that Poythress, not Nerlens Noel had been fouled on a play with 1:05 to go...

UK associate athletic director DeWayne Peevy said in a phone interview Sunday that UK's bench argued to officials after the whistle that Poythress should be the foul shooter on the play, that the officials concurred and acknowledged to the scorer's table that "No. 22" (Poythress' number) would be the shooter...

"As I recall, there was some confusion over who the shooter was between Nerlens Noel and Alex Poythress. I know our bench was arguing that No. 22 was the shooter, and the official acknowledged it to the table that '22' was the shooter. And I didn't really think much more of it after that."


Actually it's the UK rep talking about the incident and using the word "officials". He can say whatever he wants, doesn't mean he's telling the truth, or lying. Me talking about what the President said doesn't mean the President actually said anything I said he said. You get what I'm sayin?

The actual officials haven't and probably will not actually talk about this incident to the media.

I don't believe you guys are arguing over something so stupid. You made a mistake let it go man.
 
2012-12-31 06:43:09 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The refs in that game were bad. Only reason Kentucky was in it at the end were some ticky-tack fouls on Louisville's starting backcourt.


The refs have to train the players for the NBA somehow.
 
2012-12-31 07:45:35 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The refs in that game were bad. Only reason Kentucky was in it at the end were some ticky-tack fouls on Louisville's starting backcourt.


You're half right. Only reason Louisville won was the shiat refs just happened to be reading their tip sheets when the Cards fouled. Weird how Dieng kept fouling and fouling with no calls made. Oh, he had 4 already? Wouldn't want his folks to travel all that way and not to see him in a full game, I guess.

Any other stadium, that game is a 10 point Wildcats win. Louisville does not want to face this team in March.
 
2012-12-31 08:01:48 AM
Does it really matter? The fact remains Kentucky is orally mounted on Indiana's groin.
 
2012-12-31 08:38:17 AM
Trolly headline suitable for the Politics tab. Kentucky had nothing to do with this. shiatty officiating (the entire game).
 
2012-12-31 08:47:57 AM

imapirate: cmunic8r99: Not according to the official.

Well I think we can agree that it's pretty difficult to commit a reach-in on someone standing behind you. Either way, that was a terribly officiated game on both sides. One minute they were letting them beat the hell out of each other, the next minute they're calling anticipation fouls.


Pretty much, The officiating was God-awful both ways. Either let them play, or don't. Regardless, that was a fun game, and I'm glad to finally see improvement out of UK.
 
2012-12-31 09:11:01 AM

cmunic8r99: boyofd: cmunic8r99: imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.

Not according to the official.

You do realize the "official" in the title of that article is a UK representative, not the official.

You do realize the "official" mentioned four different times in the article I linked is the referee that told the official scorer that Poythress was supposed to be shooting:

FTFA:
UK merely sent the player to the line who officials deemed was supposed to be the shooter after the UK bench argued that Poythress, not Nerlens Noel had been fouled on a play with 1:05 to go...

UK associate athletic director DeWayne Peevy said in a phone interview Sunday that UK's bench argued to officials after the whistle that Poythress should be the foul shooter on the play, that the officials concurred and acknowledged to the scorer's table that "No. 22" (Poythress' number) would be the shooter...

"As I recall, there was some confusion over who the shooter was between Nerlens Noel and Alex Poythress. I know our bench was arguing that No. 22 was the shooter, and the official acknowledged it to the table that '22' was the shooter. And I didn't really think much more of it after that."


I acknowledged the ref's call in my post -- why cut that part of my quote out? The ref put the guy at the line that the UK bench told him to put at the line. Ref's fault, but your link suggests that UK had nothing to do with it, which is plainly false.
 
2012-12-31 09:15:48 AM

EyeballKid: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The refs in that game were bad. Only reason Kentucky was in it at the end were some ticky-tack fouls on Louisville's starting backcourt.

You're half right. Only reason Louisville won was the shiat refs just happened to be reading their tip sheets when the Cards fouled. Weird how Dieng kept fouling and fouling with no calls made. Oh, he had 4 already? Wouldn't want his folks to travel all that way and not to see him in a full game, I guess.

Any other stadium, that game is a 10 point Wildcats win. Louisville does not want to face this team in March.

LOL. Everything UK needed to happen to win happened, and UK still couldn't get close enough to have the ball with a chance to tie or take the lead. You should start the "wait until next year" talk, and skip the "wait until March" talk for now.
 
2012-12-31 09:21:46 AM

boyofd: LOL. Everything UK needed to happen to win happened, and UK still couldn't get close enough to have the ball with a chance to tie or take the lead. You should start the "wait until next year" talk, and skip the "wait until March" talk for now.


You keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that the "third ranked team in the nation" just eked by the "twenty-third ranked team in the nation" with a lotta Big East officials' help, and still looks strong going into conference play against...?

And good luck trying to pull that shiat with the Refzyzewskis in the ACC next season. Learn the sound of a ref's whistle, you'll be hearing it often.
 
2012-12-31 09:25:44 AM

boyofd: EyeballKid: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The refs in that game were bad. Only reason Kentucky was in it at the end were some ticky-tack fouls on Louisville's starting backcourt.

You're half right. Only reason Louisville won was the shiat refs just happened to be reading their tip sheets when the Cards fouled. Weird how Dieng kept fouling and fouling with no calls made. Oh, he had 4 already? Wouldn't want his folks to travel all that way and not to see him in a full game, I guess.

Any other stadium, that game is a 10 point Wildcats win. Louisville does not want to face this team in March.
LOL. Everything UK needed to happen to win happened, and UK still couldn't get close enough to have the ball with a chance to tie or take the lead. You should start the "wait until next year" talk, and skip the "wait until March" talk for now.


That's true, Louisville fans know all about "wait until next year."
 
2012-12-31 09:27:17 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: ticky-tack


Louisville may get ticky-tack fouls called on them, but then they rape Noel and a walk is called.
 
2012-12-31 09:30:45 AM
And just in case the trolls haven't realized it yet, this is a non story. The correct player, according to the officials, went to the line. It looks suspect from the angle shown, but I've seen the wrong player step to the line and the official correct them in other games. This is only a story because it's Kentucky involved.
 
2012-12-31 09:48:21 AM
hehe..Duke complaining about a wrong that should have been righted...against Kentucky. That's funny like a foot stomp in the stomach.
 
2012-12-31 09:53:11 AM

mybulkaddress: This is only a story because it's Kentucky involved.


And there you have it, folks. We call that "UK dumb" here in the Commonwealth.
 
2012-12-31 09:55:09 AM

boyofd: cmunic8r99: boyofd: cmunic8r99: imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.

Not according to the official.

You do realize the "official" in the title of that article is a UK representative, not the official.

You do realize the "official" mentioned four different times in the article I linked is the referee that told the official scorer that Poythress was supposed to be shooting:

FTFA:
UK merely sent the player to the line who officials deemed was supposed to be the shooter after the UK bench argued that Poythress, not Nerlens Noel had been fouled on a play with 1:05 to go...

UK associate athletic director DeWayne Peevy said in a phone interview Sunday that UK's bench argued to officials after the whistle that Poythress should be the foul shooter on the play, that the officials concurred and acknowledged to the scorer's table that "No. 22" (Poythress' number) would be the shooter...

"As I recall, there was some confusion over who the shooter was between Nerlens Noel and Alex Poythress. I know our bench was arguing that No. 22 was the shooter, and the official acknowledged it to the table that '22' was the shooter. And I didn't really think much more of it after that."

I acknowledged the ref's call in my post -- why cut that part of my quote out? The ref put the guy at the line that the UK bench told him to put at the line. Ref's fault, but your link suggests that UK had nothing to do with it, which is plainly false.


because you implied that my use of the word official was a reference to the UK assistant AD, when it was a reference to the same ref you mentioned.

Also, the quote I included, from the aforementioned UK assistant AD, saying UK lobbied the ref is an indication that the article suggests UK had nothing to do with it? Interesting. Bad reading comprehension, but still interesting.
 
2012-12-31 10:51:33 AM

cmunic8r99: boyofd: cmunic8r99: boyofd: cmunic8r99: imapirate: The foul was on Smith (Louisville #2) who was called for reaching in on Noel (Kentucky #3). Poythress was behind Smith when he fouled Noel.

Not according to the official.

...

because you implied that my use of the word official was a reference to the UK assistant AD, when it was a reference to the same ref you mentioned.

Also, the quote I included, from the aforementioned UK assistant AD, saying UK lobbied the ref is an indication that the article suggests UK had nothing to do with it? Interesting. Bad reading comprehension, but still interesting.


Your original link didn't quote the article, but pretended to correct information from imapirate that was and remains 100% correct. Then you quote mined my post to reinterpret it. I'm not the one with the reading problem.
 
2012-12-31 10:56:59 AM

EyeballKid: boyofd: LOL. Everything UK needed to happen to win happened, and UK still couldn't get close enough to have the ball with a chance to tie or take the lead. You should start the "wait until next year" talk, and skip the "wait until March" talk for now.

You keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that the "third ranked team in the nation" just eked by the "twenty-third ranked team in the nation" with a lotta Big East officials' help, and still looks strong going into conference play against...?

And good luck trying to pull that shiat with the Refzyzewskis in the ACC next season. Learn the sound of a ref's whistle, you'll be hearing it often.


I was always told they didn't count moral victories in Lexington. And I didn't even know there was such a thing as a moral loss, but I will definitely feel bad about winning a rivalry match against UK because they are only barely beat a ranked team. I have heeded your advice. In any event, for UK fans and players, I truly say, Good Job. Good Effort. Impressive job avoiding the blow out.
 
2012-12-31 11:37:42 AM

phalamir: Mark Ratner: Why didn't the coach throw a challenge flag?

It's basketball: the coaches throw hissy-fits


And the occasional chair.
 
2012-12-31 12:08:08 PM

boyofd: You do realize the "official" in the title of that article is a UK representative, not the official. As for the ref, he only put Poythress at the line after UK's bench "argued to the officials" that Noel should be the shooter. I'm not sure it counts as cheating, but don't pretend that (1) it wasn't a mistake to UK's benefit, and (2) it wasn't UK pushing for the mistake.


I for one am outraged that a sports team might push for a favorable call from the referee. This is unprecedented.
 
2012-12-31 01:15:07 PM

imapirate: mybulkaddress: This is only a story because it's Kentucky involved.

And there you have it, folks. We call that "UK dumb" here in the Commonwealth.


Pointing out the obvious makes me "UK dumb?" Please do explain. I'm sure there would be the same outrage if a player from Northwest Pacific State was waived off the line off screen by an official to be replaced by a slightly better shooter, right?

But I wouldn't expect anything less from a Little Brother fan.
 
2012-12-31 01:51:00 PM
Poythress had only made 1 of 4 at that point, so...... tell me again why we'd switch?
 
2012-12-31 05:25:57 PM

QueenMamaBee: Poythress had only made 1 of 4 at that point, so...... tell me again why we'd switch?


Because.... well, uhm, errr.

[insert picture of Laettner shot]

Kentucky fans live in the past!
 
2012-12-31 05:34:22 PM
Okay, I have to ask... were these Big East refs, and if so, was Higgins one of the refs?

\anyone who's ever had the displeasure of him reffing at one of their team's game knows why I ask
 
2012-12-31 06:18:16 PM
Callipari is a rat bastard.
 
2013-01-02 11:36:48 AM
Ok then. I guess that answers my question.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report