Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 7:37:16 GMT
He grabs his hip as he goes past. Its a weak foul and a terrible way to end a game but a foul nevertheless
|
|
|
Post by sussexbantam on Nov 15, 2020 8:32:31 GMT
He touches his hip (arguably). It’s certainly not a grab.
It’s only a foul if the game has been called that way for the previous 39;58. It hadn’t.
That said - it distracts from how poor the scorchers were. I was really disappointed. Lack of defensive effort and organisation and too much one-on-one offense meant we had looked just like scorchers teams of previous years. The refs call shouldn’t distract from what was a very poor performance.
|
|
|
Post by dandayr on Nov 15, 2020 10:53:40 GMT
taking a step back from the final call - I loved the way coach Newby trusted his players to do the job. Scorchers scored and you can see the Wolves player picking the ball off the floor look to his bench for the time out to be called and is told not happening so he steps behind basket to in ball it. Great trust by the coach in his players to know what they need to do and not give the opponent the chance to talk through how to play out the next d.
|
|
|
Post by sussexbantam on Nov 15, 2020 12:21:40 GMT
Agree with that 100%. And it was an extremely smart decision to miss the final FT
|
|
|
Post by allstring on Nov 15, 2020 12:52:29 GMT
He grabs his hip as he goes past. Its a weak foul and a terrible way to end a game but a foul nevertheless My opinion only, but the call was only made because Bouwknecht lost control of the ball (the debate being what caused that to happen). But that wasn't Cashaw. Either Skyler tipped it (and for the benefit of balance, I could see why that might be called a foul, but generally ball deviation like that with no blatant contact is clean) or Bouwknecht lost control. I'm pretty certain Skyler tipped it and then the question is whether it was clean or a foul in doing so. Initially I also wondered if Bouwknecht may have started to dump off to Okiki but he wasn't. In my opinion the ref thought Cashaw caused the issue of the ball flying off towards Walshe and called the foul for that reason. Of course the foul doesn't have to be related to what happened with the ball (i.e. it doesn't mean a foul can't be called on Cashaw), but in my opinion that is what happened here and had Skyler not deviated the ball there would have been no call. I reiterate that the team who deserved to win, did win. Scorchers finished the first three quarters in possession and failed to deliver in any. Q1 had very little time left, but they were unaware of the game clock. Q2 a time out followed by a full shot clock just petered out. Q3 went nowhere ending in a turnover that Worcester scored off a split second too late. And yes I know that technically Worcester were in possesion when the buzzer sounded in Q2 and Q3! Cashaw was one assist off a triple double and showed a lot of promise. I'd like to see him more authorative in the big plays which is something an experienced PG often excels at. Every Worcester player contributed very well and only MBA had a disappointing game. McSwiggan was impressive and I loved what Johnson-Thompson brought from the bench. If they can integrate their American's then they are a nice looking team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 12:59:46 GMT
Just to be clear I thought the call was pathetic, I was merely just stating why it had been called
|
|
|
Post by scorcherheat on Nov 15, 2020 15:14:00 GMT
The contact from Cashaw was so slight, i would have thought Bouwknecht hardly felt it. So yes, the softest of soft calls. By strange coincidence the group cup game at Worcester between the same teams last season ended with Tayo putting up a shot and the refs deciding the ball was on the way down and awarding the basket, giving Scorchers a 1 point win with 2 seconds remaining.
|
|
|
Post by sussexbantam on Nov 15, 2020 22:53:51 GMT
Just caught up on the box score for this - Wolves a very credible 16-18 from the charity stripe, Scorchers 15-21.
There is your ball game..
|
|
|
Post by strandedona303 on Nov 16, 2020 8:48:04 GMT
Just caught up on the box score for this - Wolves a very credible 16-18 from the charity stripe, Scorchers 15-21. There is your ball game.. This is too simplistic! The same could be said for Hassan's technical with 3 minutes left! Scorchers were a very poor! Your earlier post hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by allstring on Nov 16, 2020 11:50:33 GMT
Just caught up on the box score for this - Wolves a very credible 16-18 from the charity stripe, Scorchers 15-21. There is your ball game.. This is too simplistic! The same could be said for Hassan's technical with 3 minutes left! Scorchers were a very poor! Your earlier post hit the nail on the head. It's true that Stats can certainly show up some very interesting information and Worcester's 16 from 18 shows they didn't let the Scorchers off the hook. You could give a case though that Surrey effectively hit 17 from the line. Down the stretch Tayo missed a pair but Cashaw put the offensive rebound straight back up for two. I thought Surrey didn't execute well, were lazy at times, and often didn't appear to have a clear play (although some of that may be related to poor execution). Worcester excelled in much of those areas and as has been highlighted, did so much right after Tayo tied the match with around 15 seconds remaining. Different circumstances but the polar opposite to how Surrey executed the close of Q3.
|
|
|
Post by sussexbantam on Nov 16, 2020 14:28:00 GMT
Just caught up on the box score for this - Wolves a very credible 16-18 from the charity stripe, Scorchers 15-21. There is your ball game.. This is too simplistic! The same could be said for Hassan's technical with 3 minutes left! Scorchers were a very poor! Your earlier post hit the nail on the head. You're right of course - I just have a pet hate about how poor we are at FT. We almost always shoot worse than the other team and I find it lazy and unprofessional !
|
|
Hearsay247
Rookie
Posts: 39
Favourite Team: Worcester Wolves
|
Post by Hearsay247 on Nov 27, 2020 12:38:50 GMT
Trust someone to find the negative in a positive announcement. Worcester may not turn out to be the only organisation which provides free to view coverage, but they are, to my knowledge (which will probably be questioned), the only one to have formally announced that ALL of their home games this season will be free to view. Surely the main talking point should be that anyone who is interested in the BBL can now stream every home game of one of the best coached BBL teams for free for the entire season. A generous initiative which should be applauded in these difficult times - as should all other organisations who are able to provide a similar service for free. I'm not finding the negative in a positive announcement, quite the opposite, I don't like how the announcement is negative (saying Wolves are the only team providing free coverage this season) when the situation is positive (a number of teams are actually providing free coverage this season)!!! I also don't like fake news, and it's quite disrespectful to the other organisations and their efforts and generous initiative in providing their fans with free coverage too. Still “fake news”?
|
|