Brian:

I have no comment.

I'm not at liberty to say.

Brian,

You wonder why people think you have an agenda? How many times are you going to bring this up? You have written more about these foul calls YOU are obsessed with than UCLA winning its third straight PAC 10 title. When have you ever dwelled on bad officiating actually COSTING UCLA a game? That is right up there with the times you moved other teams up in your poll for losing besides SC, or other teams down for winning besides UCLA

There was nothing controversial about the Cal game. Look at the replay and tell me where the foul occurs? Did you see it better in press row? http://telemachus.smugmug.com/gallery/4432674_9EWJ3#263630340_HwLye-A-LB

And Josh Shipp's shot, was simply a judgement call. Do you think they were going to waive a shot like that off at the end of the game unless they were 100% sure it wasn't allowed? Thats as likely as them calling a charge on Stanford on their last score during regulation. It doesn't happen.

I would love to hear your opinion on the video above showing there was no foul committed at the end of the CAL game to cause the turnover.

The calls were controversial. Brian doesn't have an agenda. If he did, then we'd have to lump the rest of the sporting news world.

Nearly everyone outside of UCLA fans has a negative view of the officiating of the last two games. Given the history of PX officiating not really a big surprise, but if this had happened against UCLA, this blog would be in complete meltdown mode.

Heck, if Brian didn't post all the sides of a very controversial story wouldn't he be criticised for having an agenda as well by those outside UCLA? Brian isn't an extension of the athletic dept and this blog isn't just read by UCLA fans.

I, for one, wish the team takes the criticism to heart and play with more passion and urgency as UCLA heads into the PX and NCAAs. I HOPE they play with a chip on their shoulder. It is my wish they get some disrespect by EVERYONE. It seems they play better that way.

i was sad to see this brought up again =(

I can understand the gray area on the Shipp shot, but how can you argue the foul on Anderson? Especially considering the players are going in there to foul since the shot clock was turned off.

No. 1, what happened in pror games should have no affect on subsequent games. If there are bad calls in the future then they should be addressed once again. Of course, college players are not in a position to be arbiters with referees if they wish to avoid technicals.

Second, thanks Brian for taking the heat off me-- the bloggers usually like to have me for breakfast.

PLH55,

Check out the video link in my original comments. There simply is no foul. It is a replay from two angles, and both show a clean strip of the ball by Westbrook.

Everyone's scared of another dynasty, let them hate!

Even if it's a foul on Anderson (I don't see it) the game is far from over, even if he hits both TFs the Bruins still have more than 10 seconds to get off a decent shot. IMHO bad officiating the first 'SC game cost the Bruins a win (clean steal by Westbrook against Hackett wide open for a dunk and the lead, foul called) yet no one complained about it on our side.

Silverlake Bruin, good point. I think UCLA winning it's third straight conference title, a streak which started a few years after having it's worst seasons since World War II, is a pretty big story. I don't remember reading much about it at all here. Did I miss it?

However, I do remember reading things about how UCLA should drop to 5th place in the polls, or how Howland "accuses" his players' doctors in an attempt to deflect blame from UCLA doctors, or how Wooden's family was undoubtedly outraged at Howland's comments, and polls and close scrutiny on the calls made on UCLA's last two wins.

Brian does a great job of objectively presenting all the UCLA news he is able to share, whether it be good or bad. If it's on the newswire, we can be sure to see it here. As a bonus, we get to hear about inside info not published elsewhere. Readers need to understand that he's a reporter, not some homer sitting around sharing his opinions.

Isn't the point that a reporter is supposed to check the facts, not just report the dominant narrative?

Brian, have you reviewed the video I linked to above? Do you think it is a clear foul that should have been called, or are you just repeating what everyone else is saying? I don't see a foul in the slow motion replay.
On the second issue, Do you think the officials had enough certainty on Shipp's shot to overturn it and decide the game by waiving it off?

Although the dominant narrative is that UCLA lucked out, I think the officials were rigtht not to call a foul that didn't happen, and could not overturn the game on Shipp's shot because it wasn't reviewable, and none of them had the angle to determine if it went over the backboard in real time. It's not that complicated.

BTW-In regards to the Stanford foul at the end of the game giving Collison two free throws, I agree that although it was a foul, it was too ticky tack to call at the end of the game. However, DC is right that it was a make up call for the missed Stanford charge on the preceding play. Why the media isn't up in arms about that missed call is a mystery.

So, can we stop all the nonsense about UCLA getting bailed out. It is total nonsense.

In Brian's defense, I was curious to know what the players thought about this. I agree with Kevin, and not just because we got favorable calls in the last 2 games. A team this good shouldn't be complaining about refs. We can beat any team if we play our best. It's only when you play like crap, or you're just not a good team, that you need to blame your failures on the refs.

Thanks for linking Telemachus's video here, Silverlake. I think it's clear that the refs made the correct call in this case. It seems like anyone looking at that video with an open mind would have to agree. Credit should be given to Westbrook for a great play.

I don't understand the huge commotion over this little blurb. Once again, we have a handful of Bruin fans that make all of us look like whiners when a reporter writes something that they disagree with. I don't think anyone on either side of the argument will ever know for sure whether the ref's calls (or non-calls) at the end of the Stanford and Cal games were correct or not. But to suggest there isn't at least controversy now is to be in a total state of denial. You think Brian's biased against the Bruins? Like he's the only person in the country talking about this? I'm sorry - you're right; the rest of the world is wrong.

tom,

its not the blurb, its the pattern: Moving up USC 5 spots in his poll after losing to Arizona AT HOME, moving us down 2 spots after sweeping cal and #8 Stanford. His post game write up on the Cal and Stanford games were obsessed with the officiating, yet I have never seen him criticize Pac 10 officials before. The criticism of UCLA for not accepting Dorrellian mediocrity in football, the "facts" that the UCLA football job wasn't good, that we couldn't bring in a better coach, that the fans had unreasonable expectations, etc etc etc.

Now, the point is after seeing the replay, why does Brian think this was a foul. The replay from two angles clearly shows it wasn't, and there is no other video, and Brian was up on the second deck of Pauley, so I am not sure where this certainty that we somehow benefited from poor or biased officiating came from.

Hi, uh, my name is Brian. I think, uh, that you should not, uh, be allowed to strip, uh, the ball from the offensive, uh, player at the end, uh of the game. This, uh, gives an unfair, uh, advantage to, uh, the defensive team. A much more fair, uh, strategy, would, uh, be to throw the, uh, ball as hard as you,uh, can, uh, into the opposing players, uh, face and,uh, or groin area. This would be, uh, much more fair and, uh, sportsmanlike. Another, uh, strategy, would, uh, be to give the opposing, uh, player a, uh, concussion. That, uh, would not only, uh solve the problem for the, uh, current game but also, uh, the next couple. That is just, uh, my professional, uh, opinion.