Kill the Conspiracy theory

1. The Stanford Foul. Yes, there was contact. Even McCabe, the head of the Pac 10 officials acknowledged it days later. However, his comment was that the foul shouldn't have been called in that type of situation, whatever that means.

What many columnists and others are ignoring is that if you watch the replay carefully, Lawrence Hill was vertical. However, he jumped up and into Collison. Though his body was vertical, the jump wasn't. It was at an angle at Collison. Watch the replays. I have, several times. Secondly, I believe that once he's jumped, it can then be argued that he initiated contact, not Collison. There's no question that the shot block itself was good. All ball. But there was clearly body contact. To make the claim that the foul shouldn't be called just because it's the end of the game is ludicrous. That attitude gives license to any defender to hack and beatup anyone driving to the basket or attempting to shoot at the last minute, and not worry about being called for the foul. Some might say that this is what happened at the end of the UCLA/Texas A&M game. I'll get to that later.

It's also been mentioned that on the possession immediately preceeding this play, Hill drove to the basket and bowled over Kevin Love scoring the go ahead basket. Watching the play over and over again, it appears that Love was planted. It also appears that Hill tried to shift sideways and avoid him, but he still bowled him over. Was it a charge or a blocking foul on Love? Who knows? It wasn't called, yet it should've been, one way or the other.

The one thing that really bugs me about the foul called on Hill, was the claim that this call gave UCLA the game. This is total bulls***. The idiots making this claim ignore the fact that Collison still had to sink both free throws just to get to overtime. Then in overtime, UCLA had a chance to win it. Funny thing, Stanford also had a chance to win it in OT, but they didn't. But by that time, there were no more "controversial" calls. Still, thanks to Dodd and other sports writers, the controversy will live on.

2. The Cal "non-foul". As someone else here said, watch the replay. Ironically, the best angle was the camera above the court, up on the concourse showing the court from the side. Yes, Westbrook's left hand was on Anderson's back. But watch his right hand and that downward motion that Coach Lavin said was an absolute guarantee of a hacking foul. The ball comes loose, but Anderson's arms are stationary. They don't move. Just the ball. Had he hit his arms you'd think they would've moved. They didn't. Other angles and replays show that during the ensuing scramble for the ball, Anderson dove for it, and accidentally tipped the ball out with his fingertips. It didn't go off his leg or anyone else's as some have claimed.

Also, watch the position of the refs. The baseline ref was on the right side of the basket, about 20-25 feet from where the ball was inbounded to Anderson. The sideline ref in question was about the same distance but down the sideline. As the ball was inbounded, the baseline ref was blocked by other players. So he couldn't see what was happening between Anderson, Shipp and Westbrook. The sideline ref couldn't see anything except Anderson's back. If Westbrook actually did hack and hit Anderson's arms, he couldn't have seen it, nor could the baseline ref. Curiously, the sideline ref, rushed up to the action, just in time to call the ball out of bounds as Anderson tipped it out.

Also, keep in mind that this game happened on Saturday afternoon, barely 24 hrs. after all the complaints about the Stanford call on Thursday night. Is it possible that given McCabe's admonishing Thursday Night's refs, that these refs didn't want to call anything unless they were absolutely sure?

3. The "illegal" Shipp shot. I was there for both the Stanford and Cal games. Our seats were behind the UCLA basket and from our angle, it was an incredible shot. It was clear that Shipp was behind the rim, but it looked like the ball went up and over the side. Later, re-watching the game on our DVR, it was clear that you couldn't really tell if the ball went up and over the backboard from behind. At most, it looked like 1/2 the ball went over the corner. Is that illegal? Many seem to think so, including the head of Pac 10 officiating, Mr. McCabe. However, I understand that the head of NCAA officiating said that it wasn't. His interpretation of the rules was that the rule regarding the ball going over the backboard was only intended to prevent the ball from being inbounded by throwing it over the backboard from out of bounds. It was never meant to prevent anyone taking such a ridiculously low percentage shot. As it is, it's easy to see why the refs didn't call it. It's not a clear, definitive violation.

4. The Texas A&M "blocked" final shot. Yes it was a foul, and yes it should've been called. Collison has his hand on Sloan's elbow, and Shipp has his hand on Sloan's wrist milliseconds before Shipp strips the ball from him. But if I'm arguing that Hill's foul on Collison should've been called, then I should be consistent, and say that this foul should've been called too. Yes, it should've bee. But again, the fact that this foul wasn't called didn't give UCLA the game. Sloan, a 67% free throw shooter would've had to make both free throws. There still would've been 4-5 seconds left for UCLA to either score or take it into overtime. UCLA had the momentum. I don't think the Aggies would've won in OT. They scored 5 points in the last 10 mins. of the game, they couldn't hit their free throws. The Bruins switched their defensive style from low post double-teaming to single coverage. The Aggies couldn't handle it. They have no one to blame but themselves.

It really is unfortunate that the game ended on such a "controversial" play. The foul should've been called. But the officiating didn't give them the game.

Like many close UCLA games this year, the officiating really was pathetic. Collison's foul on Sloan when Sloan wrapped his arm around him and then threw him was the most flagrant example. But watching the game you'll see bad calls/non calls through out the game favoring both sides.

Face it. UCLA is a very good basketball team. No, they are not 100%. Not at all. Shipp is struggling to find his outside shot, and Mbah Amoute is playing on a bad ankle. Hell, even Michael Roll, their 3 point shooter is still injured.

But they're in the Sweet 16, and frankly, even though they're not 100%, they can take on anybody, and beat anybody.

You guys are comical. 

Yes, UCLA is a talented, well-coached team.  They have been the recipients of some very favorable officiating. 

Would A&M have won that game had the obvious mugging been properly called?  The way A&M played not to lose, UCLA probably would have still won.

How about the insanely bad Pac-10 officiating to give them wins over Stanford and Cal?  Well, those were completely over-the-top, especially the Cal game.  They were gift wrapped a couple of late season wins to keep a #1 seed and the single easiest draw to the Final 4 I have ever seen.

Everyone acknowledges that UCLA is a great team.  Face it, you have been very fortunate.  Instead of expecting people not to talk about it, enjoy it.  This type of one-sided late game officiating doesn't come around very often.

wow, you guys are all dillusional.  Is it just a coincidence that EVERY single late call in games lately has gone to UCLA.  Probably not.  I can see making a case for one or two calls because i am sure every team gets "some" of those every once in a while.  But 4 calls over a 2-3 week period that determine the end of the game its just insane.  The Bruins should have at least 2 more losses and playing as a 2 seed in some where not California. 

How can you go into so much detail about jumping up and slightly leaning to initiate contact, and how that is a foul on the defensive player according to the rules, then argue your point about shooting a ball behind the backboard.  Who cares what the rule was intended to stop, if it is broken for any reason it should be called.  simple enough. 

Enjoy your undeserved present to the final four, hopefully you wont need a late game call to beat Western Kentucky. 

I was thinking back on the last 20 years as a Bruin Alum.. and I don't ever recall this much controversy, nor this much luck with officiating calls.  It seemed like we were always on the bad side of a call.  I also thought we lucked out on our seeding and the upsets in our path.  If this means we are destine to win it all, I am ver grateful for the breaks! 

Slammy

Fine, so I'm delusional. (check your spelling).

The reality is that not EVERY single call in the games went our way. You're presumably a Tar Hell fan. Good for you. They're a good team. I highly doubt that you've watched all the Bruin games this year. Much to wife's dismay, I have.

I'm not denying that UCLA benefited from a few late calls, but to say that those calls resulted in wins for UCLA is misleading. With Stanford, that "bad" call gave UCLA a chance to get to overtime. It wasn't a chance to win the game. Just ... to... get... to... overtime. Stanford still had a chance to win it in overtime but didn't. I felt bad for Stanford because they're a good team, but if you've got an 11 point lead with 5 mins. left, and you can't close out the win, whose fault is it? The refs? Yeah, right. Yes, the foul should've been and was called. Don't berate me for going into detail. I presented facts to support my position. Where are yours?

The Texas A&M game - yes, it was a bad non-call. The foul should have been called. But at most, they were going for a tie to take it to overtime, not a win. Had it gone to overtime, do you really think that Texas A&M would've won, given the dramatic momentum change, and UCLA's undeniable homecourt advantage? I don't.

The Cal game is another matter entirely. There was no foul on Anderson. Again, look at the replay. There's a link around here somewhere. Anderson's arms didn't move. After the ball was knocked loose, Anderson lunged for it and tipped the ball out. Case closed. As for Shipp's shot, I don't know if it was illegal. Alot of people are saying that it was. Okay, fine. But again, the refs didn't call it. Why? I don't know. Do you? Did they give UCLA the game? It seems that way.

Don't forget that the common denominator in all three games was that all three of UCLA's opponents had significant leads in the 2nd half, and yet they failed to hold them. UCLA fought back. The other teams have no one to blame but themselves.

By the way. Few here have mentioned that Cal played UCLA 5 days later in the Pac 10 Tourney. During the warmups before the game, many of the Cal players were attempting Shipp's shot. It was actually pretty funny to watch, because no one could make it. As a final side note, UCLA stomped Cal in that game, winning by more than 20.

Good luck to North Carolina, but I'm rooting for Washington State.

One more thing. I just checked the post and saw that I said "Tar Hell". My apologies.

That was a typo. Again, good luck to the Tar Heels.

I hope people keep on talking this nonsense B.S. It just makes them sound like babies crying over spilled milk. One call at the end of the game does not determine the end result of the game, there is 40 minutes of basketball to play. Ask any coach or player and they will say that free throws and missed layups is what cost them the game. Can a ref' have some impact, YES but there's more to the game than ONE CALL.

And if there is a missed call, THATS SPORTS. If you cant handle it then dont watch. You guys sound so pathetic and sorry that all you do is B*itch and cry. UCLA didn't get to Back to Back Final 4's over luck. Stop and think that their talent actually had to do with winning the PAC 10 title, the PAC 10 tourney and winning 33 games. 

If and when UCLA wins their 12th NCAA Bball championship and 101 NCAA CHAMPIONSHIP, then UCLA will be standing on top and laughing at all the haters and whiners. Until then keep on crying, we'll be marching on into San Antonio  to cut down the nets.

While it is ultimately the other teams fault for losing with those leads, you cant be completely convinced that UCLA deserved to win those games. 

Stanford would never have lossed had they not had to go into overtime.  yeah they still had the chance to win the game in overtime but the fact is, if that foul is not called, there is no overtime, no chance for UCLA, no win. 

As far as A&M, yeah momentum was with UCLA, yeah i think UCLA would of crushed them in overtime.  But who knows, if he hits that shot, or makes both free throws, that has the potential to swing momentum back to Texas and maybe will them to the upset. 

I just think the big difference between the bad calls in the first minutes of the game compared to final second bad calls is that at least  teams can recover from bad calls early in games.  The calls in the final seconds doom the losing team and give them no chance to overcome those calls. 

TARHEELS all the way baby!!

OK, full disclosure first, I'm a KU fan.  I'm not going to b!tch about the calls that UCLA has gotten over the past few games however.  It's over, the calls were made, the outcomes are decided, and so far, they haven't impacted KU, so what do I care. 

However, I have to comment on Shipp's shot.  To even begin to argue that it wasn't taken from behind the backboard is just ridiculous.  Apply this criteria to it when you watch the replay...if he had not put enough arch on the shot for the ball to go over the backboard, would it have hit the side or back of the backboard?  The answer is absolutely, unequivocally 100% yes.  Therefore, the principles of geometry say that the shot was released from behind the backboard.  This, in my opinion, is completely indisputable.  (I do think it is a dumb rule and should be changed, but for now, the rule book says it's an illegal shot.)  I really would challenge any UCLA fan to watch that replay in the context I mention above and try to make a legitimate case that the shot was not taken from behind the backboard.

Good luck to all in the tourney, until you play KU!  Rock chalk!