• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Cooke's dunk trending

C

COS Cowboy

Well-known member
Top story on Yahoo right now

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/wyoming-s-derek-cooke-jr--throws-down-huge-dunk--video-182520715.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
The refs didn't lose the game for us...but they prevented momentum and got into our heads. When you can't do anything right and the other team can't do anything wrong, you get desperate and play outside of yourself.
 
kdwrightuwyo said:
The refs didn't lose the game for us...but they prevented momentum and got into our heads. When you can't do anything right and the other team can't do anything wrong, you get desperate and play outside of yourself.
Click to expand...

I second this.
 
The call could have went both ways, but it was likely a charge. Still a ridiculous dunk. As far as the refs, they did not cost us the game, but I agree they cost us 8-10 points and started again with the BS calls as we were gaining momentum. It is quite sickening that our guys were tagged with fouls for playing good D all season, but other teams clobbered us all season with many fouls going uncalled. The MWC refs hate us....that is obvious. And the NCAA tourney refs certainly didn't give us any love. Fun season all the way aroind though. Good luck to Larry at the NBA Combine!
 
This rule DOES exist in college basketball as well as the NBA. That's what the white line is for under the basket. If any part of the defenders feet are on this line, the defender is declared "in the circle" and cannot garner a charge call. However, this UNI defender clearly was not in the circle. The reason I said the call could have went both ways, is because the defender was planted but did not take head on contact from Cooke Jr. The defender flopped to the side, which should have negated the charge foul.
 
I think it would have been a great time for a no call . It was an epic play, a good defensive position and a flop.

Would have been a sc top 10 if there was no foul.
 
It set the tone for how poorly they would call the game for Wyoming. We start hot and they call anything they can while letting UNI do as they pleased. I truly think there would have been a different outcome had it been called the same both ways
 
Aaron said:
It set the tone for how poorly they would call the game for Wyoming. We start hot and they call anything they can while letting UNI do as they pleased. I truly think there would have been a different outcome had it been called the same both ways
Click to expand...

Yes, a different outcome as in a closer score. But in no way did the piss poor calls lose us this game. After looking at the game stats I can ascertain why we lost the game. It was a combination of three things, A) The refs called a one way game which resulted in 9 more FT attempts for UNI. 2) UNI pulled down 7 more rebounds than UW. 3) UW had five more turnovers than UNI. Otherwise our shooting percentages and number of FG's made were nearly identical. So, even if we were given 8 more FT attempts and UNI would have 6 of their attempts taken away due to being BS calls, we still would have lost by a close margin due to poor rebounding and turnovers. Believe me. I am the first one to call it how I see it with referee favoritism, and I believe it cost us games such as our first meeting with SDSU. However, I don't see it being the sole reason for losing this NCAA tourney game.
 
STJ10 said:
This rule DOES exist in college basketball as well as the NBA. That's what the white line is for under the basket. If any part of the defenders feet are on this line, the defender is declared "in the circle" and cannot garner a charge call. However, this UNI defender clearly was not in the circle. The reason I said the call could have went both ways, is because the defender was planted but did not take head on contact from Cooke Jr. The defender flopped to the side, which should have negated the charge foul.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Thank you. Guess I am just a dunderhead
 
Wow.....was not aware you can call charging when a guy dunks the ball...... :willybs:
 
STJ10 said:
This rule DOES exist in college basketball as well as the NBA. That's what the white line is for under the basket. If any part of the defenders feet are on this line, the defender is declared "in the circle" and cannot garner a charge call. However, this UNI defender clearly was not in the circle. The reason I said the call could have went both ways, is because the defender was planted but did not take head on contact from Cooke Jr. The defender flopped to the side, which should have negated the charge foul.
Click to expand...

People get this wrong all the time. Your feet DO NOT have to be planted in order to draw a charge. Fact of the matter is you don't even have to be stationary. You can be moving and still draw a charge on your opponent. The restricted area under the basket will influence the call but beyond that it deals with the rule of verticality. You have the right to occupy the space in a vertical plane from floor to ceiling providing you establish "Position" first. People get confused with the term "position" they mistakenly interpret this as being stationary when in fact that is not what it means.
 
reward the offensive player if that's what they chose to do(dunk) not the defensive player for standing there, that's my take, now if it's truly blatant and the offensive player runs the guy over, sure, but that was apparent those refs never saw DC play and they just reacted to what they thought they saw
 
Yeah, although the refs did not cost us the overall game, they sure as hell did everything they could to help Northern Iowa, beginning with that "offensive foul".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top