UNC vs Rutgers

[cantrelax]

Should have used that TO as soon as they crossed the mid-line in OT. Rutgers was the real deal! Congrats to the Heels!

[keno in reno]

and none of you guys know the rules. i won't call you names or label your posts.

Rutgers player was in the box for 4-5 full seconds with no one within 12 feet of him. Certainly could have called timeout there.



Several seconds after that photo, Gray came from above and dislodged the ball. Rutgers had lots of time to call one before that comfortably. But it wasn't in the game plan.

didn't recall.mids carrying it into the box. that said, posts were made on calling one "on the ride". multiple posts. leading to multiple unsettleds.

and the mid wasn't in any kind of duress. gray chased him down in a split second.

last, the asst at least (and maybe brecht) had something to say about having called timeout. you can see the asst trying as the pick up the gb (he's not officially allowed to). this ish happens quick not only on the field, it's even possible brecht tried to call with the ball in box and refs didn't see or hear.

wasn't an obvious -- we're in duress we need a to imo anyway as it happened so quick and literally one second before they were pushing transition.

You didn't recall, but you had no problem claiming nobody knew the rules?

[DocBarrister]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

The way North Carolina was riding and playing defense, as soon as Rutgers had the ball, Rutgers was “under duress.” The result of that sequence of play pretty much proves the “armchairs” right.

By the way, wgdsr, don’t deprecate the “armchairs”. At least we saw the Rutgers middie enter the box.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

they won't be haunted by anything.
and they finished 8 and 3 in the b1g. no one outside of umd sniffed .500. a bunch around .300. they were #2 and it wasn't close.

[Houndfan73]

and none of you guys know the rules. i won't call you names or label your posts.

Rutgers player was in the box for 4-5 full seconds with no one within 12 feet of him. Certainly could have called timeout there.



Several seconds after that photo, Gray came from above and dislodged the ball. Rutgers had lots of time to call one before that comfortably. But it wasn't in the game plan.

True. Or you could yell timeout at the ref a step or two prior to Gray getting there....which Brecht did (per someone on field) and it wasn’t called. Too bad. Happens. Obviously there’s no expectation that you call it “early” or with “plenty of time”.

[wgdsr]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

The way North Carolina was riding and playing defense, as soon as Rutgers had the ball, Rutgers was “under duress.” The result of that sequence of play pretty much proves the “armchairs” right.

By the way, wgdsr, don’t deprecate the “armchairs”. At least we saw the Rutgers middie enter the box.

DocBarrister

lol. and you now want to deprecate the rutgers coach. as an armchair. and i'm defending your guy. because you've never really been there. but on the quad.

[DocBarrister]

they won't be haunted by anything.
and they finished 8 and 3 in the b1g. no one outside of umd sniffed .500. a bunch around .300. they were #2 and it wasn't close.

Ok, call Rutgers #2 in the B1G. They just took ACC #1 to OT.

By the way ... Johns Hopkins, the worst team in the B1G, beat this Rutgers team by two just a few weeks ago.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

The way North Carolina was riding and playing defense, as soon as Rutgers had the ball, Rutgers was “under duress.” The result of that sequence of play pretty much proves the “armchairs” right.

By the way, wgdsr, don’t deprecate the “armchairs”. At least we saw the Rutgers middie enter the box.

DocBarrister

lol. and you now want to deprecate the rutgers coach. as an armchair. and i'm defending your guy. because you've never really been there. but on the quad.

He blew one timeout. I feel for the guy. But he’s the B1G Coach of the Year and I have great respect for him.

Also, maybe like you, Brecht didn’t “recall” that his player was in the box.

DocBarrister

[calourie]

You don’t keep a timeout in your pocket when North Carolina has been so relentless on the ride.

That decision will haunt Rutgers for years.

DocBarrister

You would have thought Rutgers might have been able to make some adjustments for the UNC ride long before the OT period. Transition turnovers were the only area all game where the Tar Heels outplayed the Knights, but they did so in an overwhelming fashion, and fittingly it ended up being the reason that they won. A terrific effort by the Knights nonetheless.

[HopFan16]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

How many true fastbreak chances did Rutgers have all game? One? That didn't really look like one to me. Point man got bottled up in the corner then dumped off to the trailer, but Gray was quick to the hole, and another defender wasn't too far away—would have been one incredible goal for the SSDM to turn that into something, and they hadn't done much of that all game. It's a perfectly reasonably argument to say they should have valued the possession there in OT over a maybe? possibly? unlikely? suboptimal transition opportunity.

Again this all unfolded in a handful of seconds which is eons in lacrosse time. We've seen timeouts granted in much stickier situations within a split second. Rutty had time to ask for one, and if they asked for one there, they would have gotten it. "Coaches were yelling for one according to those near the field" sounds like a face-saving attempt to me.

[wgdsr]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

The way North Carolina was riding and playing defense, as soon as Rutgers had the ball, Rutgers was “under duress.” The result of that sequence of play pretty much proves the “armchairs” right.

By the way, wgdsr, don’t deprecate the “armchairs”. At least we saw the Rutgers middie enter the box.

DocBarrister

lol. and you now want to deprecate the rutgers coach. as an armchair. and i'm defending your guy. because you've never really been there. but on the quad.

He blew one timeout. I feel for the guy. But he’s the B1G Coach of the Year and I have great respect for him.

Also, maybe like you, Brecht didn’t “recall” that his player was in the box.

DocBarrister

i would pay money to watch you coach. good money.

[DocBarrister]

and none of you guys know the rules. i won't call you names or label your posts.

Rutgers player was in the box for 4-5 full seconds with no one within 12 feet of him. Certainly could have called timeout there.



Several seconds after that photo, Gray came from above and dislodged the ball. Rutgers had lots of time to call one before that comfortably. But it wasn't in the game plan.

True. Or you could yell timeout at the ref a step or two prior to Gray getting there....which Brecht did (per someone on field) and it wasn’t called. Too bad. Happens. Obviously there’s no expectation that you call it “early” or with “plenty of time”.

If I’m Brecht, I yell “timeout” running on the field and then violently tackle the ref just to make sure.

DocBarrister

[cantrelax]

Both goalies were outstanding Great snipers on both squads as well. That was a great game to watch.

[DocBarrister]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

The way North Carolina was riding and playing defense, as soon as Rutgers had the ball, Rutgers was “under duress.” The result of that sequence of play pretty much proves the “armchairs” right.

By the way, wgdsr, don’t deprecate the “armchairs”. At least we saw the Rutgers middie enter the box.

DocBarrister

lol. and you now want to deprecate the rutgers coach. as an armchair. and i'm defending your guy. because you've never really been there. but on the quad.

He blew one timeout. I feel for the guy. But he’s the B1G Coach of the Year and I have great respect for him.

Also, maybe like you, Brecht didn’t “recall” that his player was in the box.

DocBarrister

i would pay money to watch you coach. good money.

You should pay me. I have a good memory and can “recall” when my player is in a position where the rules allow me to call a timeout.

My coaching style would also be efficient ... I would show them videos of Virginia, UNC, and Loyola and say, “Play like that ... see you at the end of the season when it’s done.”

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

How many true fastbreak chances did Rutgers have all game? One? That didn't really look like one to me. Point man got bottled up in the corner then dumped off to the trailer, but Gray was quick to the hole, and another defender wasn't too far away—would have been one incredible goal for the SSDM to turn that into something, and they hadn't done much of that all game. It's a perfectly reasonably argument to say they should have valued the possession there in OT over a maybe? possibly? unlikely? suboptimal transition opportunity.

Again this all unfolded in a handful of seconds which is eons in lacrosse time. We've seen timeouts granted in much stickier situations within a split second. Rutty had time to ask for one, and if they asked for one there, they would have gotten it. "Coaches were yelling for one according to those near the field" sounds like a face-saving attempt to me.

2 guys went to 1st shortie and a pole? had to come up to his pass receiver in the middle of the field? that's the definition of seeing whether seeing if something happens. do you recall loyola calling a to when they had numbers on duke?
didn't duke win it all? this isn't cut and dried and there was some effort somewhere to call one when it broke down (quickly) and the staff didn't look happy.

go with what you want. they're doofusses.

edit: get on a sideline. refs miss to requests all the time. the lead looked like an old man, watching the play but already at gle. the trail was nowhere in the picture but they're also not often watching. sheesh.

[DocBarrister]

Both goalies were outstanding Great snipers on both squads as well. That was a great game to watch.

Like a great boxing match. As soon as one team looked ready to land the knock out, the other guys fought right back.

Great game, fellas. I will “recall” this one for a long time.

DocBarrister

[10 10 2]

Congrats to Justin Anderson and Chris Gray for each getting the ball back late in the game. Huge individual efforts in a game where I think UNC mostly got outplayed by Rutgers.

If I'm Brecht, I'm maybe seeing Gray stuck on defense and hoping my players can exploit that. You certainly don't expect Gray to totally mug the guy. Hindsight is 20-20.

[wgdsr]

That's my point—a TO was never in the cards there. If they wanted one they could have told the ref before "hey, if we get it in the box, we want a TO." They waited till the player was under duress to call one and by then it was too late—ball was already on the turf. Should have went into that possession with the plan of calling a TO as soon as they made the box. Had so many chances to and they didn't—only explanation is they didn't want one. I don't buy that they wanted one earlier and the refs just didn't hear. 4-5 seconds is an eternity in "ref I want a timeout"-land. UNC didn't have any issues getting one the moment they got it in the box.

he was never under duress for 4 or 5 seconds. now you're saying call a timeout and kill a fast break possibly.

bottom line, this wasn't one that was ironclad. one way or the other. but the armchairs have it right, i'm sure.

The way North Carolina was riding and playing defense, as soon as Rutgers had the ball, Rutgers was “under duress.” The result of that sequence of play pretty much proves the “armchairs” right.

By the way, wgdsr, don’t deprecate the “armchairs”. At least we saw the Rutgers middie enter the box.

DocBarrister

lol. and you now want to deprecate the rutgers coach. as an armchair. and i'm defending your guy. because you've never really been there. but on the quad.

He blew one timeout. I feel for the guy. But he’s the B1G Coach of the Year and I have great respect for him.

Also, maybe like you, Brecht didn’t “recall” that his player was in the box.

DocBarrister

i would pay money to watch you coach. good money.

You should pay me. I have a good memory and can “recall” when my player is in a position where the rules allow me to call a timeout.

My coaching style would also be efficient ... I would show them videos of Virginia, UNC, and Loyola and say, “Play like that ... see you at the end of the season when it’s done.”

DocBarrister

keep using that like it makes you right.

stealing is the best and easist form of coaching. at least you figured that out. now, you gotta figure out how to get them to do.

[HopFan16]

2 guys went to 1st shortie and a pole? had to come up to his pass receiver in the middle of the field? that's the definition of seeing whether seeing if something happens. do you recall loyola calling a to when they had numbers on duke?
didn't duke win it all? this isn't cut and dried and there was some effort somewhere to call one when it broke down (quickly) and the staff didn't look happy.

go with what you want. they're doofusses.

edit: get on a sideline. refs miss to requests all the time. the lead looked like an old man, watching the play but already at gle. the trail was nowhere in the picture but they're also not often watching. sheesh.

That's fine. Doesn't have to be cut and dried. The moral of the story is they were legally allowed to call a timeout, had time to do so, and didn't. It may have cost them a win. I don't buy that they tried, but that's just like, my opinion, man. Staff body language didn't look like guys who had just tried to call a timeout with possession in OT but weren't granted it and then turned it over. I've seen Brecht a lot more animated over less.

We can move on. Brecht had a great season. One game or one call or non-call doesn't change that.

[CU77]

Terry Foy:

I asked Brecht whether he was trying to call a timeout in OT and if that led to his dispute with the official. He said he didn’t have an issue with the ref at that time, and described how he’s trusted his players in that spot all year.

Pretty clear wasn’t trying to call TO.

https://twitter.com/TerenceFoy/status/1 ... 4659689476