Silsbee 79 Hardin-Jefferson 76/FINAL

[no-look]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

  

[Kountzer]

The refs are not a factor, because they are a constant factor.  In other words a team or player has to play good enough to where they control the outcome, not the ref.  Being a high school basketball ref is a hard job.  Sometimes what a ref calls or doesn't call can determine a state championship.  

In this case if the HJ shooter had hit that 3 pt shot they probably would of given him a foul shot to maybe win the game.  But he missed.  They weren't gonna give him three fouls shots to maybe extend the game.  The ref wanted to go home. Can't say I blame him.

[BADSANTA]

3 hours ago, stevenash said:

LMBO all you want - He lives 3 houses from me and has been shooting in my backyard for 5 years.  Additionally, he weights about 115 pounds and is a sophomore.  I know his dimensions quite well because he does his shooting with my freshman grandson who is of very similar stature.

He missed who cares man!!! Game set match!!! Silsbee won. Let's move on to next Tuesday. Lol

[whsalum]

Then they need to get out of officiating. If it's a foul you call it, if the kids shooting it's a shooting foul, if he's behind the arc he shoots 3. The officials did a good job overall. It's a shame a missed call is what they will be remembered for in this game. 

[Tigers94]

1 hour ago, no-look said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

  

Pretty nice shot by Jordan there. Might could have used him on the football field this past year.

Hardin Jefferson fans shouldn't worry. You'll get a chance to beat us at the Tiger den in a few weeks

Silsbee has lost a few games here and there arguably due to bad officiating in the past, so you'll get no sympathy from us. Sorry.

[stevenash]

2 hours ago, Tigers94 said:

Pretty nice shot by Jordan there. Might could have used him on the football field this past year.

Hardin Jefferson fans shouldn't worry. You'll get a chance to beat us at the Tiger den in a few weeks

Silsbee has lost a few games here and there arguably due to bad officiating in the past, so you'll get no sympathy from us. Sorry.

Hmmm   very interesting that Silsbee losses result from possibly  bad officiating but that doesnt apply to anyone else.  I don't recall seeking anything resembling sympathy from you or your brethren.

[Hagar]

5 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Quote malfunction.

[stevenash]

4 hours ago, BH85 said:

I agree with you that it is a foul.  I just think they waived off the one and one or 2 free throws since there is no time left on the clock and no way the free throws would of effected the outcome. (I could not hear buzzer on video, so I assume it had went off since people mentioned it was a buzzer beater).  

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  The shooter attempts a 3 point shot( because his team is behind by three points) and you think he would get a one and one  or two free throws if the foul was called?

[TxHoops]

15 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  The shooter attempts a 3 point shot( because his team is behind by three points) and you think he would get a one and one  or two free throws if the foul was called?

He’s saying it would not be a “shooting foul” because the contact was “after the shot.”  He’s incorrect though and had a foul been called, it should have been 3 FTs.  

[Who That]

Hahaha yall still talking about this shot... lmao 

[stevenash]

22 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

5 minutes ago, Who That said:

Hahaha yall still talking about this shot... lmao 

.  

 

23 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

He’s saying it would not be a “shooting foul” because the contact was “after the shot.”  He’s incorrect though and had a foul been called, it should have been 3 FTs.  

I understand what he is implying.  I was trying to lead him to conclude, on his own, that his contention was incorrect without being disrespectful.

[BH85]

32 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

He’s saying it would not be a “shooting foul” because the contact was “after the shot.”  He’s incorrect though and had a foul been called, it should have been 3 FTs.  

11 minutes ago, stevenash said:

 

I understand what he is implying.  I was trying to lead him to conclude, on his own, that his contention was incorrect without being disrespectful.

Was the foul before or after he landed? If it was before he landed, it would be a shooting foul and 3 shots.  If it was after he landed it would be a common foul not in the act of shooting.  I thought I have been pretty clear in saying my view shows it was after he had landed and therefore not a shooting foul.  The trail ref in the picture's should of watch him to the ground.  He should of called the foul in either case as there was quite a bit of contact.  The only way he should of not blown the whistle is if the buzzer had already went off and felt the contact happened post landing (shot over) and post buzzer since there are no common fouls after the game.  I can't hear the buzzer to know when it went off.

[ST413]

16 minutes ago, BH85 said:

Was the foul before or after he landed? If it was before he landed, it would be a shooting foul and 3 shots.  If it was after he landed it would be a common foul not in the act of shooting.  I thought I have been pretty clear in saying my view shows it was after he had landed and therefore not a shooting foul.  The trail ref in the picture's should of watch him to the ground.  He should of called the foul in either case as there was quite a bit of contact.  The only way he should of not blown the whistle is if the buzzer had already went off and felt the contact happened post landing (shot over) and post buzzer since there are no common fouls after the game.  I can't hear the buzzer to know when it went off.

Honestly the buzzer was a second two later. We had the ball when it went off if i remember right.

[Eagles12]

4 hours ago, Kountzer said:

The refs are not a factor, because they are a constant factor.  In other words a team or player has to play good enough to where they control the outcome, not the ref.  Being a high school basketball ref is a hard job.  Sometimes what a ref calls or doesn't call can determine a state championship.  

In this case if the HJ shooter had hit that 3 pt shot they probably would of given him a foul shot to maybe win the game.  But he missed.  They weren't gonna give him three fouls shots to maybe extend the game.  The ref wanted to go home. Can't say I blame him.

I can. At 70 dollars a game, officials better not miss calls because "they want to go home"

[ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING]

1 hour ago, Who That said:

Hahaha yall still talking about this shot... lmao 

If silsbee is number 3 in 4a who is number 1 and 2 

[Fergton]

1 hour ago, BH85 said:

Was the foul before or after he landed? If it was before he landed, it would be a shooting foul and 3 shots.  If it was after he landed it would be a common foul not in the act of shooting.  I thought I have been pretty clear in saying my view shows it was after he had landed and therefore not a shooting foul.  The trail ref in the picture's should of watch him to the ground.  He should of called the foul in either case as there was quite a bit of contact.  The only way he should of not blown the whistle is if the buzzer had already went off and felt the contact happened post landing (shot over) and post buzzer since there are no common fouls after the game.  I can't hear the buzzer to know when it went off.

So I'm curious under these circumstances you describe  what if he makes the 3 point shot and the foul is called after he lands he gets 2 free throws since they were in the bonus ? Possible 5 point play?

[TxHoops]

11 minutes ago, Fergton said:

So I'm curious under these circumstances you describe  what if he makes the 3 point shot and the foul is called after he lands he gets 2 free throws since they were in the bonus ? Possible 5 point play?

Or kid shoots a layup, both feet hit the ground, then a defender lands on top of him.  Possible 4 point play or, if not in bonus, team that just scored retains possession? 

[JimThorpe]

29 minutes ago, ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING said:

If silsbee is number 3 in 4a who is number 1 and 2 

Wilmer Hutchins is 1 and Faith Family is 2.  Both are in Region 2, south side of Dallas, and both are very very good.  They are not overrated.  Fortunately the Region 3 winner (Silsbee I hope) will only have to play one of them. 

But R3 can't look past R1 who we play in the semi-final, if I read the brackets right.  The R1 winner will likely be either No.6 Decatur or No. 9 Argyle.  Either of those will give us all we want, trust me.  The closest game Silsbee has played in playoffs in the last 2 years was the semi game against Argyle which we won by 1 point.  (and as I've said, it was closer than that)

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, JimThorpe said:

Wilmer Hutchins is 1 and Faith Family is 2.  Both are in Region 2, south side of Dallas, and both are very very good.  They are not overrated.  Fortunately the Region 3 winner (Silsbee I hope) will only have to play one of them. 

But R3 can't look past R1 who we play in the semi-final, if I read the brackets right.  The R1 winner will likely be either No.6 Decatur or No. 9 Argyle.  Either of those will give us all we want, trust me.  The closest game Silsbee has played in playoffs in the last 2 years was the semi game against Argyle which we won by 1 point.  (and as I've said, it was closer than that)

They reseed when they get to state, based on record.  Silsbee could end up being the 3rd or 4th seed, due to the brutal schedule.   Just depends on who ends up there.  

[JimThorpe]

Is it based purely on winning percentage?  I assume then that 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3?

[WOSgrad]

8 minutes ago, JimThorpe said:

Is it based purely on winning percentage?  I assume then that 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3?

Well, sort of.  1 and 2 seeds are locked in.  3 and 4 seeds have a coin flip as to who plays #1 seed and who plays #2 seed.

So it could be 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 OR 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 4

[Who That]

Wilmer Hutchins will be the one that comes out of Carter - Faith Family - Lincoln my opinion anyway. 

[JimThorpe]

1 hour ago, WOSgrad said:

Well, sort of.  1 and 2 seeds are locked in.  3 and 4 seeds have a coin flip as to who plays #1 seed and who plays #2 seed.

So it could be 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 OR 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 4

Okay, that makes sense.  If the coaches poll is infallible, which I will assume for now, it will be Decatur from R1, Hutchins from R2, Silsbee from R3 and Needville (yes Needville) from the monstrously powerful R4.  Assuming all these win out their regular seasons here's what the winning percentages will look like at the end of the Regional tournaments. 

Decatur    .925

Hutchins   .914

Silsbee     .813

Needville  .794

R2 is very competitive but seeding stays the same even if it's Faith Family instead of Hutchins because they will be at  .846 going in.  I didn't even look at Yates because that is a contingency, irrespective of its likelihood, that is too horrible to contemplate.

Silsbee may drop to No. 4 behind Yates based on the result of the Hardin Jefferson game and the fact that Yates just put it on Washington 131  - 76.  Washington is a decent team, a little better than WOS probably, occasionally scores over the century mark.  I wonder if anyone else has heard what I heard about two new recrui.... excuse me...... transfers that recently became eligible for Yates.  One is 6'-7 and the other is 6'-9.  Remember the discussion about Yates?  How they weren't as tall this year?  Right.

 

 

[AggiesAreWe]

8 minutes ago, JimThorpe said:

Okay, that makes sense.  If the coaches poll is infallible, which I will assume for now, it will be Decatur from R1, Hutchins from R2, Silsbee from R3 and Needville (yes Needville) from the monstrously powerful R4.  Assuming all these win out their regular seasons here's what the winning percentages will look like at the end of the Regional tournaments. 

Decatur    .925

Hutchins   .914

Silsbee     .813

Needville  .794

R2 is very competitive but seeding stays the same even if it's Faith Family instead of Hutchins because they will be at  .846 going in.  I didn't even look at Yates because that is a contingency, irrespective of its likelihood, that is too horrible to contemplate.

Silsbee may drop to No. 4 behind Yates based on the result of the Hardin Jefferson game and the fact that Yates just put it on Washington 131  - 76.  Washington is a decent team, a little better than WOS probably, occasionally scores over the century mark.  I wonder if anyone else has heard what I heard about two new recrui.... excuse me...... transfers that recently became eligible for Yates.  One is 6'-7 and the other is 6'-9.  Remember the discussion about Yates?  How they weren't as tall this year?  Right.

 

 

Do not rule out Argyle in Region I or Liberty Hill in Region IV

[no-look]

13 minutes ago, JimThorpe said:

Okay, that makes sense.  If the coaches poll is infallible, which I will assume for now, it will be Decatur from R1, Hutchins from R2, Silsbee from R3 and Needville (yes Needville) from the monstrously powerful R4.  Assuming all these win out their regular seasons here's what the winning percentages will look like at the end of the Regional tournaments. 

Decatur    .925

Hutchins   .914

Silsbee     .813

Needville  .794

R2 is very competitive but seeding stays the same even if it's Faith Family instead of Hutchins because they will be at  .846 going in.  I didn't even look at Yates because that is a contingency, irrespective of its likelihood, that is too horrible to contemplate.

Silsbee may drop to No. 4 behind Yates based on the result of the Hardin Jefferson game and the fact that Yates just put it on Washington 131  - 76.  Washington is a decent team, a little better than WOS probably, occasionally scores over the century mark.  I wonder if anyone else has heard what I heard about two new recrui.... excuse me...... transfers that recently became eligible for Yates.  One is 6'-7 and the other is 6'-9.  Remember the discussion about Yates?  How they weren't as tall this year?  Right.

 

 

I’m shocked at the idea of Yates getting recru.. uh I mean transfers. Lol