porchy 10 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Grundy can forge a 3-way tie by beating Richlands at Richlands tonight. Who has more to gain or lose? Grundy! Can Richlands win?? Yes.. Who will win?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blues_56 23 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 It's senior nite and homecoming nite for Richlands tonite...the last time our seniors will play at RMS and i think they want to go out of there with a winning fashion since they have been so use to losing so much....dont think it will be a cake-walk for Grundy.!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouse 10 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 We dont think it will be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhsfan88 22 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] We dont think it will be! [/ QUOTE ] Bullentin board material right there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy10 10 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] We dont think it will be! [/ QUOTE ] Bullentin board material right there... [/ QUOTE ] What is? That we dont think it will be a cake walk? How is that bullentin board material? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhsfan88 22 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] We dont think it will be! [/ QUOTE ] Bullentin board material right there... [/ QUOTE ] What is? That we dont think it will be a cake walk? How is that bullentin board material? [/ QUOTE ] My fault. Missread the previous post. Thought you were saying it was going to be a cakewalk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 halftime : Richlands leads Grundy 42-36. Wave gets a bucket at the buzzer, but a foul was waved off, so no shot attempted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 Another call against us. Richlands gets a basket after the buzzer to maintain a 6 point lead after 3 quarters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaveFan09 50 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 can you give an update? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 Someone wasn't very happy with the refs tonight. Don't know how, but Grundy wins 73-71. Wave gets a bucket AND 2 free throws with :05 left to get their first lead of the night and Richlands misses the last shot. I think the principals will meet Friday to determine who plays in a playoff game Sat. at Tazewell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaveFan09 50 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 whew! thank god, do you got anymore updates?? were the refs one sided?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kave06 10 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 It has already beed decided, if Graham wins Friday they will play Grundy Sat. and the winner goes on to play CC, all games are at Tazewell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesfans 10 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 Good game by both teams. Hand it to Grundy for contining to fight. The press hurt Richlands tonight. But at the end I am not sure on a loose ball under the goal, that is on the floor, leads to someone shooting a two shot foul?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmspartan 10 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 Congratulations to the Golden Wave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy10 10 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 Church was going up for a lay-up on the baseline when the foul was whistled. There was no loose ball. Happened right in front of the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesfans 10 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 Who lead the scoring for both??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blues_56 23 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Church was going up for a lay-up on the baseline when the foul was whistled. There was no loose ball. Happened right in front of the bench. [/ QUOTE ] Not like it matters now but we had video footage of the game and close up on that particular play and he didnt even have the ball in his hand for 3 seconds b4 the foul was called so really there was no possesion and therefore should not have been a shot foul BUT...it doesnt matter now so congrats to Grundy and Richlands for a hard fought last second game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy10 10 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 You dont have to have the ball for 3 secs to establish possession. You get the ball, you shoot it, get fouled in the process its a 2 shot foul unless you make the shot and it is a 1 shot foul. But your right, it doesnt matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uderricky 10 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Church was going up for a lay-up on the baseline when the foul was whistled. There was no loose ball. Happened right in front of the bench. [/ QUOTE ] Not like it matters now but we had video footage of the game and close up on that particular play and he didnt even have the ball in his hand for 3 seconds b4 the foul was called so really there was no possesion and therefore should not have been a shot foul BUT...it doesnt matter now so congrats to Grundy and Richlands for a hard fought last second game. [/ QUOTE ] Who told you that you had to have possession of the ball for 3 seconds before it can be considered a shooting foul?? Its not like the NFL where you have to catch the ball and make a football move to establish possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blues_56 23 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 That's not wat i said...i said he clearly didnt have posession for at least 3 seconds.>>WHICH MEANS ***DID NOT*** have the ball when he was fouled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 [ QUOTE ] That's not wat i said...i said he clearly didnt have posession for at least 3 seconds.>>WHICH MEANS ***DID NOT*** have the ball when he was fouled. [/ QUOTE ] You don't have to control the ball for three seconds for it to be considered "having possession of the ball". All you have to do is have "control" of the ball (which can be as little as a few tenths of a second) in order to be in possession. A good example of this would be when a ball is going out of bounds and a player grabs it and calls timeout at the same time. Since he has "control" of the ball, he has "possession" of it and is granted the timeout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesfans 10 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 The issue is not control vs control. On the tape when the player goes up for the shot he does not have the ball, it is still on the floor. It was such a crowd in the lane that he really fakes out everyone and gets a foul called without even having the ball in his hands when he goes up. The issue really doesn't matter anymore because the game is not going to be changed. Just to clarify the situation. If you have access to a tape with the right angle you can see it easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 [ QUOTE ] The issue is not control vs control. On the tape when the player goes up for the shot he does not have the ball, it is still on the floor. It was such a crowd in the lane that he really fakes out everyone and gets a foul called without even having the ball in his hands when he goes up. The issue really doesn't matter anymore because the game is not going to be changed. Just to clarify the situation. If you have access to a tape with the right angle you can see it easy. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe as he started up to shoot the ball was knocked loose during the act of committing the foul...the players motion continued as if he was shooting, minus the ball, still "in the act" of shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy10 10 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Exactly GMan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blues_56 23 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That's not wat i said...i said he clearly didnt have posession for at least 3 seconds.>>WHICH MEANS ***DID NOT*** have the ball when he was fouled. [/ QUOTE ] You don't have to control the ball for three seconds for it to be considered "having possession of the ball". All you have to do is have "control" of the ball (which can be as little as a few tenths of a second) in order to be in possession. A good example of this would be when a ball is going out of bounds and a player grabs it and calls timeout at the same time. Since he has "control" of the ball, he has "possession" of it and is granted the timeout. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not retarded i know wat possession means and what not. I was just sayin he didnt have the ball for 3 seconds i didnt mean to stir shit up, damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.