Video Evidence: Wagner Did Not Block Williams's Shot (Still Nice Effort!)
There seems to be a bit of confusion among the MGoCommunity about what exactly happened at the end of regulation. Watching it live, I certainly thought Wagner blocked Williams's shot. The photo in Ace's post sure looks like he blocked it. He even got credit for it in the box score! But, alas, he didn't come close to touching it.
The sequence is clear: Williams gets the pass with 0.9 seconds left. Trying to get the shot off before the buzzer, he quickly releases it with 0.5 seconds left, shortarming it in the process. The ball bounces off the rim and goes to the rim's left and harmlessly off the backboard. Don't believe me? Here's the evidence:
Doesn't take anything away from the win (or Wagner's effort on the play)! But let's not gaslight ourselves. Go Blue!
January 10th, 2020 at 3:33 AM ^
Fantastic post with great video, thanks. Not getting his hand on it may have saved the game. Jumping a split second sooner could have resulted in an unnecessary goaltending on what turned out to be a weak shot.
January 10th, 2020 at 3:40 AM ^
This was my thought initially too. However, now that I think about it, I don't think it was possible for Franz to commit goaltending on that play. The ball was never on the way down and was also never inside the cylinder. The only way is if the officials blew the call, which happened pretty frequently.
January 10th, 2020 at 7:03 AM ^
January 10th, 2020 at 7:58 AM ^
Not true if the ball is not above the rim. The ball must be above the rim for this to matter, in this instance it never was.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:41 AM ^
I think it has to be above the rim. Pretty sure you can block it off the backboard below the rim.
January 10th, 2020 at 10:42 AM ^
question about teske's goaltending call toward the end of regulation (i think, could've been the 1st OT)
purdue shot to the basket and teske reaches his hand up and appears to touch the net and possibly barely wisp the underside of the rim, but never going over the rim. he got called for goaltending or possibly basket interference and they even reviewed it.
can someone with a better grasp of the rules fill me in on why that was a call.
January 10th, 2020 at 11:05 AM ^
Just watched it on my recording. He touched the ball. He reached a portion of his hand through the underside of the rim and deflected it. It is questionably whether it would have been called if he didn't, a lot of time big men get their hands up near or close to the net/rim and if it doesn't impact the shot(the rim doesn't move) they will just play on. On this one Teske got ball.
January 10th, 2020 at 11:19 AM ^
thanks john. great explanation.
January 10th, 2020 at 11:32 AM ^
No problem.
Extra for anybody who hasn't watched any of the game over (I wouldn't blame you). Teske's defense was really not that bad. Garza abused Teske, but this guy was just making some wild shots that I frankly do not think he could make again.
January 10th, 2020 at 1:21 PM ^
Yeah this was my thought. Ball never got above the rim or inside the cylinder so unless he touched the rim or net like Teske earlier in the game, I don't think it's possible to get a goal tend there. Also if he's any closer to the ball, he's risking getting too far into Williams body and getting a foul called.
January 10th, 2020 at 3:32 PM ^
How did you find *TWO* camera angles on that play? Was one an iPhone? According to the refs and Fox only one camera was at the game last night.
January 10th, 2020 at 5:07 PM ^
I just cropped the two replays FS1 played last night. One was the normal sideline view and the other was from the baseline on the other side of the court.
January 10th, 2020 at 5:14 AM ^
Wagner might have blocked a better shot - he was right there. In any case I’m sure the Purdue player “hearing footsteps” impacted the shot.
Either way, glad we didn’t get hit with more end of game bad luck.
January 10th, 2020 at 1:25 PM ^
He was more likely to foul Williams on a better shot. His hand was at it's peak well before getting to the basket (watch the replay again) and then he brought it down hard. Had Williams taken more time to keep it in his hands and go higher with the ball, Wagner probably would have come down on Williams arm given how far behind he was.
January 10th, 2020 at 6:13 AM ^
I thought it was goal tending live because it came off the backboard. Clearly not!
January 10th, 2020 at 6:27 AM ^
Quality stuff Ham - now go get us some video evidence of cheating by our rivals...
January 10th, 2020 at 7:01 AM ^
January 10th, 2020 at 7:08 AM ^
?, i’m talking about our real rivals (I.e. Rutger)
January 10th, 2020 at 7:00 AM ^
January 10th, 2020 at 10:25 AM ^
Yeah agreed, it was pretty clear upon first replay on TV that the guy hit the underside of the rim on his shot. Though I think I heard the announcer say something about a block.
January 10th, 2020 at 7:23 AM ^
I’m not buying it Zapruder. Got anything from the grassy knoll?
January 10th, 2020 at 8:03 AM ^
Idk what gaslight means. I have only heard it used very recently. Is it a common word I single never knew ??
January 10th, 2020 at 8:06 AM ^
It is not a real thing.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:54 AM ^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or73uwbmOKw
Re: Gucci: Gaslighting is exactly what the male anchor is doing here. He's trying to convince the woman she is crazy in order to weaken her point. It's intentionally pulling a veil over someone's head to convince them that the truth they know is false because they are an unreliable narrator to his or herself.
January 10th, 2020 at 12:03 PM ^
GASLIGHTING ISNT REAL YOURE JUST FUCKING CRAZY
Great episode.
A real world example of gaslighting is the “new” co-opted white power symbol aka the “OK” sign which is dubious at best but convinced enough people that it’s controversial however most people deem the people who believe it is co-opted as insane/overtly sensitive even if at one point some white supremacist did use the sign to incite said controversy hence gaslighting. That’s the most recent relevant example I can think of.
January 10th, 2020 at 12:55 PM ^
This is a really poor example of gaslighting, regardless of your take on the "ok" symbol.
A good recent example would be Russia's involvement in Ukraine or Crimea. Despite overwhelming evidence (and regardless of how you fall on other allegations made against Russia), Russia denies all involvement.
January 10th, 2020 at 3:59 PM ^
Interesting.
While the example you give is completely not an example of gas-lighting, your actual post is a very good example of it.
January 10th, 2020 at 1:03 PM ^
Wait... are you gaslighting someone asking about gaslighting? So meta.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:51 AM ^
To unsettle somebody else by taking intentional disguised action to instill self-doubt in them.
In other words, what your in-laws do every time you see them.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:06 AM ^
The term was coined from an old play (and later an old movie) where a guy makes his wife think she is crazy by moving stuff around in their house and then later insisting nothing has changed. Nowadays people will accuse people of attempting to "gaslight" when they make claims that are obviously false or somewhat questionable.
January 10th, 2020 at 11:26 AM ^
i was under the impression the play also included him changing the lighting in the house, and when she would point it out, he would accuse her of being crazy. this, being set in an old-timey.. uh.. time.. would be gas lamps. therefore - gaslighting.
if you disagree, i'm pretty sure you're crazy.
January 10th, 2020 at 12:58 PM ^
According to Wikipedia:
The term originated from the 1938 Patrick Hamilton play Gas Light and its 1940 and 1944 film adaptations (both titled Gaslight), in which a character tries to make his wife believe that she has gone insane to cover his criminal activities. When he turns up the gas-fueled lights in the upstairs apartment in order to search for a murdered woman's jewels, the gaslights in his own apartment grow dimmer but he convinces his wife that she is imagining the change.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:48 AM ^
Not quite so common but- can I show you how to Google that?
January 10th, 2020 at 2:52 PM ^
Now picture Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman in these roles.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:38 AM ^
I really don’t care if he actually blocked it. It is already registered in my mind as a block so a block it shall be.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:22 AM ^
Franz had a block because Sonny Black says he had a block.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:43 AM ^
I'm just glad he rushed the shot. He probably had exactly enough time for a gimme layup, and he rushed it just enough to blow it.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:47 AM ^
This “block” was clean.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:59 AM ^
THIS!
January 10th, 2020 at 8:49 AM ^
Im a bit confused by the effort that went into this post. Why? It seems entirely irrelevant.
January 10th, 2020 at 8:57 AM ^
Someone's getting laid in college.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:01 AM ^
Maybe the OP is far more talented than you, and it required him/her minimal effort.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:54 AM ^
Ham was involved in a kerfluffle in another thread with 1 or 2 posters. Those 2 posters - even when faced with these GIFs - would not hear of anything other than Wagner saved the day with a thunderous block. It actually got a little weird because the proof is obvious in these GIFS. Those other posters were ready to die a torturous death on the hill of Wagner's phantom block.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:25 AM ^
He clearly used the power of good, nerd.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:38 AM ^
thanks for this
January 10th, 2020 at 9:41 AM ^
I liked Wagner's play overall when he was at the 4 as part of the 3 guard lineup last night. That said, I sure wish Cole Bajema would get some time at the 3 in that lineup. I have been a Brooks fan but he is too timid over the last month. Cole has the height and skill to guard most small forwards and let's see if he remains a 50% shooter from behind the arc.
January 10th, 2020 at 10:17 AM ^
Bajema has earned the right to get some significant minutes by the fact that he has performed well in limited duty. I would like to see what he could do with 5-6 key minutes on both ends. Not knocking Nunez - he seems to be a good teammate and may hit 'em in practice, but it has not translated to games and he is still a work in progress on defense. With the returning guys plus all the athletic talent coming in next Fall, a knock down shooter on the wing needs to be developed.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:53 AM ^
Yeah, it didn't look like a block in real time but still a great defensive effort and if it wasn't such a weak shot, he might have blocked it.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:59 AM ^
I liked what Wagner did overall but we still need him to develop and take the next step. As I said in the game thread, I blame myself for expecting a bit too much from him. He is going to be a developing player over a couple years that should be really good by the end of his time. Besides, livers, this team needs a shooter to step up...Wagner.
DDJ should virtually never come off the court. While not perfect, he may be the best natural athlete on this team. He is one of those guys you just need to unleash and let him ball out there and make plays.
I really think this season is going to live or die on DDJ, Wagner, and Livers. Teske, X, etc. are what they are. DDJ/Wagner/Livers are going to have to play at a really high level...and they all have the ability to do that.