I'm not a basketball fan and I don't usually watch any of the March Madness games but tonight I happened to be in a restaurant that had the Auburn vs Virginia game on the TV screens and I caught the final shot that the Virginia player made, the one where an Auburn player was called for a foul and allowing Virginia's best foul point shooter to hit the three baskets to win the game.  

As I said I'm not a basketball fan and I surely don't understand the rules of basketball but it sure didn't 'appear to me that the Auburn player touched, much less fouled, the Virginia player shooting the 3 point shot in an attempt to win the game.  I guess in Basketball they don't have a review process for those type calls but the end result was that Auburn lost by one point and to me it seemed like they got robbed of a chance to play in the final Championship game against whoever wins between Texas Tech and Michigan State.

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post
L. Cranston posted:

It was a good game. I hate for any game to be won on a foul. Rules are: the shooter has a right to land and the defender jumped toward the shooter and made contact. Good call.

A great season for AU and better luck next year.

You are technically right by the letter of the law but in final games, even this one, refs allowed them to play for most of the game but when it counted they got ultra-specific on that one call.  Additionally, the others are right in mentioning that the no call for double dribbling which was obvious should have been called and alone would have most likely ended the game in Auburn's favor.  True the Virginia shooter had to make all three shots to win but for a final game and everything on the line, it was just a questionable call especially coming right after the no-call on double dribbling.  Auburn had a heck of a year and I wish them the best but this game will follow those players all their lives as something that shouldn't have happened.  I do believe Auburn would have gone all the way if given the chance.  

What kept going through my mind was how this was just the opposite (well maybe not completely the opposite) from the last minute no-call that ended the New Orlean's Saints hopes for a Super Bowl this year when the LA Ram's player was allowed to accost the receiver without a pass interference call.  I just wonder if all these no-calls or bad calls have something to do with gambling?

Jack Hammer posted:


New cat?
I bet Contendah ran over the dead one with his 1992 Kia, he likes to kill 
small animals. You know Conkia, have a drink have a drive kill a feral..

Naw, the photo doesn't show the full image but since I had my old kitty up as long as I did I thought it might be nice to add a new one.  To the extreme left is a mouse that the cat was after which is similar to my last one where the cat was chasing and about to swat the mouse. 

My personal pet cat is a 15 yr old Calico that is extremely loving these days but so content and lazy that if a mouse came up to her she'd just lie there and make the mouse run over her fur in order to get by her and most likely enjoy the feel of the mouses feet massaging her skin.  She's a wonderful pet but in no way is she frisky any more.

Add Reply

Likes (0)