CBI Final - Creighton at Oregon

[Haha]

My vision is fine, yet it does not allow me to see things to the back of my head.

I do think the court needs to be changed. I think it may have attributed to his lack of court awareness. However I have watched that replay multiple times now and it seems quite clear to me that he was not aware of exactly where he was on the court and continued to back up while looking ahead at the defender and other players.

I think with that court being the way it is he wasn't quite sure exactly where he was on the court when he took possession of the ball. So thats where I agree the court helped cause it.

[Aargh]

According to the NCAA rule posted in this thread, that half court line is legal. 1/4" shadow lines spaced 2" apart is exactly what they have.

The referees for every home game for Oregon, including this game, have approved that line before every game Oregon has played this year. That's part of the referees pre-game duties.

It might be a lousy line, and it might confuse players, but it's legal. Anything legal is something the players are required to adjust to.

I expect Young, McDermott, the assistant coaches, and half the rest of the team noticed the nearly invisible half court line before the game started. You would think they would point that out and emphasize the problem to the guards before the game started.

I agree with a lot of the "court awareness" posts. You'd think your point guard would be able to recognize the center jump circle and have the court vision to notice it and relate his position to it.

I hate that court and it would make me crazy to play on it. It's legal - and players are required to adjust to what is legal.

Sorry, CU fans. This one is on AY. He had hours to adapt to the conditions. If he had a problem with the line, he could have gone to McDermott and McDermott could have gone to the officials. AY had every chance to deal with the problem, but he spaced it out at a critical time.

If any you ever played PG, you know that the mentality changes the moment you cross half court. AY had 39 minutes and 43 seconds of game time and probably 40 or 50 times that he crossed that line and shifted from "cross mid court" mode to "set up the play" mode.

This is the equivalent of a player setting his non-pivot foot on a sideline or end line and getting a TO. Mistakes happen.

[MoValley John]

Actually, Aargh, while you are right about the rule, you are wrong with the striping at Oregon. The line is less than 1/4". In fact, it's closer to 1/16". And while I am adament about this play not being the cause of Creighton losing, the court is illegal, plain and simple. But if you are Nike, you can do what you want and the NCAA isn't going to do anything, not the home office, not gameday officials.

It was a bad luck deal for Creighton, but crap happens, if they make their freethrows, this isn't a discussion. Back to the floor. The first backcourt violation due in part to the floor happened in the first game played there vs. USC. The same thing happened to a USC player, just not in crunch time. But what is more common, is the no call, officials are not calling backcourt violations because the officials can't see the line, either. This has happened over, and over again this year. Young would have gotten away with it as well, except the Oregon player pointed it out to the official. As a matter of fact, I was reading the Oregon board and apparently they got away with a backcourt violation to start this same game against Creighton. Apparently, Oregon won the tip, advanced past half court and retreated into the backcourt. The player realized and paused waiting for the whistle. There was no whistle, so he continued. This has happened over and over again on this floor, so while you can blame Young for having this happen in crunch time, he really did nothing that hasn't happened all season to other players and being hard on him really isn't fair.

Here is a thread from a Cal message board regarding the floor. Nobody in the Pac 10 likes the floor, but this thread has a picture that easily shows the lines are not even close to a quarter inch: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=480793
Looking at the picture, you will notice that the gaps in the wood planks are wider that the line, they are also better defined. But after looking at the photo, if you still think the line is 1/4" and legal, you must also think that the shoe in the photo is three feet long and a foot and a half across. No, the floor is illegal, but if you have Nike money, you simply have to deal with it. Creighton fans also need to deal with the fact that turnovers and missed freethrows cost the game, not a backcourt violation on an illegal court.

[LJay]

We've conceded that he made a mistake.

My point is that he doesn't make that mistake on any other court in the country with all other factors being the same. That court is a piece of s***.


http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2011/04/cbi_tournament_oregon_71_creig.html

Singler said he was struck by the irony of the moment, even as it happened in the tense final seconds of a championship game. After the game, he recalled a game earlier in the season when he stepped over the invisible line, "but no one was pointing.''

[3ontheway]

According to the NCAA rule posted in this thread, that half court line is legal. 1/4" shadow lines spaced 2" apart is exactly what they have.

The referees for every home game for Oregon, including this game, have approved that line before every game Oregon has played this year. That's part of the referees pre-game duties.

It might be a lousy line, and it might confuse players, but it's legal. Anything legal is something the players are required to adjust to.

I expect Young, McDermott, the assistant coaches, and half the rest of the team noticed the nearly invisible half court line before the game started. You would think they would point that out and emphasize the problem to the guards before the game started.

I agree with a lot of the "court awareness" posts. You'd think your point guard would be able to recognize the center jump circle and have the court vision to notice it and relate his position to it.

I hate that court and it would make me crazy to play on it. It's legal - and players are required to adjust to what is legal.

Sorry, CU fans. This one is on AY. He had hours to adapt to the conditions. If he had a problem with the line, he could have gone to McDermott and McDermott could have gone to the officials. AY had every chance to deal with the problem, but he spaced it out at a critical time.

If any you ever played PG, you know that the mentality changes the moment you cross half court. AY had 39 minutes and 43 seconds of game time and probably 40 or 50 times that he crossed that line and shifted from "cross mid court" mode to "set up the play" mode.

This is the equivalent of a player setting his non-pivot foot on a sideline or end line and getting a TO. Mistakes happen.

yes, he should have had more court awareness, that is obvious. my problem is, for those saying "it had nothing to do with the line". aargh, they didn't come across half court, it was inbounded in the frontcourt out of a timeout and he was just standing there and beack pedaled over the line. he has probably dribbled the ball out by the half court line tens of thousands of times and his brain is trained with seeing that stripe peripherally and reacting with moving forward. there is no discernable line. look at the picture, read about how singler earlier this season did do the same thing and it wasn't called b/c the ref couldn't even see the violation, notice in the video AS THIS HAPPENED, it had to be pointed out by the Ducks player to the ref standing right ON TOP OF THE "LINE" that it was a violation and then he blows the whistle.

I'm sorry, this one is not just on AY. it has more to do with a court that needs to be altered than with a bonehead play by ay. he would not have done this on any other court, plain and simple.

[Aargh]

Thanks for the clarifications. Fomr the pictur that MoValleyJohn linked, the line is definitely not 1/4" wide, so the court is illegal. that leads to the questio of why no referees ever called them on it in 20 or so previous games played there.

I wasn't aware the play followed an inbounds pass. In that situation court orientation, marking, etc. is a bigger issue than it is when the PG is dribbling up the court. Coming up the court a PG pretty much has an "I'm here" court location in his head. On an inbounds pass, it's really common to have a "Where on earth am I" location in your head and need to get a quick check of the court's landmarks to determine the answer to that question.

I will strongly concede that a well-marked half court line is a much larger issue in the situation AY was in.

[MoValley John]

[quote="Aargh"]Thanks for the clarifications. Fomr the pictur that MoValleyJohn linked, the line is definitely not 1/4" wide, so the court is illegal. that leads to the questio of why no referees ever called them on it in 20 or so previous games played there.
[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head, there haven't been more backcourt violations at Oregon because the officials are not calling them, plain and simple. They didn't call one against Oregon at the opening tip and they wouldn't have called one against Young if the Oregon player hadbn't pointed out the violation to the official. WHen the player pointed it out, the offical had no choice but to call the violation. When you have an illegal court and a player can beg a call from an official because of abiguous markings, that becomes a really unfair homecourt advantage.

That said, Creighton did not lose the game because of the call; turn the ball over less and make freethrows and this game isn't close. In my opinion, this was simply a fitting end to a season where Creighton lost several games on last possession mistakes. Combine that with the Iowa State game, and this ending was simply like so many others. Creighton fans need to let it go and other fans must concede this court is illegal and you really can't put too much blame on Young.

Lastly, you would think a game ending in this manner would force the NCAA's hand. I would bet all of the Nike money sent to the NCAA that nothing is done.

[jayball]

Thanks Aargh.

The rest of this thread is like a douchebag parade.

Ay made a mistake.
Creighton had other chances in the game that could have changed the outcome.

But I don't understand how anyone can honestly sit there and say that it is okay that the lack of court markings played a pivotal role in the final possession. Was he supposed to stare at the floor, or be able to extrapolate the exact center line from the giant O? That is bullshit. They painted the out of bounds line and the three point line. If the ref had to have it pointed out before calling it, I really don't understand how you can put complete blame on AY.

Creighton still might have lost the game, AY might have dribbled if off of his foot, refs might have made a foul call.....a million things could have happened. But at least those endings would have been legitimate. All of those things are a part of the game. The absence of a boundary line is not a part of the game.

There is no NFL or college football game played without sidelines, hash marks, endzone. No other basketball court has a nearly invisible center line. Why should Oregon? Why should their opponents have to play without a clear demarcation line used to enforce game rules? Why should there ever be a situation like what happened?

That play was not the sole reason we lost, but it still shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[Jays26]

Thanks Aargh.

The rest of this thread is like a douchebag parade.
Ay made a mistake.
Creighton had other chances in the game that could have changed the outcome.

But I don't understand how anyone can honestly sit there and say that it is okay that the lack of court markings played a pivotal role in the final possession. Was he supposed to stare at the floor, or be able to extrapolate the exact center line from the giant O? That is bullshit. They painted the out of bounds line and the three point line. If the ref had to have it pointed out before calling it, I really don't understand how you can put complete blame on AY.

Creighton still might have lost the game, AY might have dribbled if off of his foot, refs might have made a foul call.....a million things could have happened. But at least those endings would have been legitimate. All of those things are a part of the game. The absence of a boundary line is not a part of the game.

There is no NFL or college football game played without sidelines, hash marks, endzone. No other basketball court has a nearly invisible center line. Why should Oregon? Why should their opponents have to play without a clear demarcation line used to enforce game rules? Why should there ever be a situation like what happened?

That play was not the sole reason we lost, but it still shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[Turner]

Final word on this from Oregon-

When Malcolm Armstead noticed the violation, he helpfully brought it to the official’s attention. And so the season’s final game was decided, in part, by a critical mistake.

Oregon’s.

It’s past time to fix a glaring error in Matthew Knight Arena’s original design.

Paint the line, guys.

“I’m happy they made the court like that,” Singler said. “It was kind of funny. (Young) had no clue he was behind half court. You don’t see that anywhere else.”

Except it wasn’t so much funny as unfortunate. And unacceptable.

The floor design, so shocking at first glance, has grown on me. I don’t even notice it anymore. I doubt anyone actually playing on it is bothered by those fir trees. And everyone watching from anywhere instantly knows the location.

But Oregon’s homecourt advantage should not include the actual home court. Not when it comes to the lines that define the game.

There has already been discussion between Oregon officials and the Pac-10 and the NCAA about making the line more visible. Expect the conversation to continue during the offseason. But it shouldn’t be necessary.

The midcourt line fulfills the letter of the rule, but not the spirit. Instead of being almost indiscernible, the line should be obvious — like the solution.

Armstead pointed out the glaring error Friday night. The correction will take about five minutes. And a paintbrush.

http://www.registerguard.com/web/sports ... s.html.csp