A quick thought

Brian, reasonable folks don't doubt what you say. And that foul that wasn't called was of course critical as it was the LAST missed call in a game filled with them.

Each of us sees our team's game from our team's point of view. As such, the calls in the game were outrageous pretty much throughout - bumps called on Love but NOT on guys playing against Love, two phantom "travels" by Mbah a Moute and a "foul" also called - by the same official each time - when he never touched an A&M player (plus it was a loose ball situation and they didn't give A&M any FTs as a result on that one).

The photo shows that last non-call should have been a foul call but I think the whole game makes folks feel that that one final error by the refs shouldn't be singled out as the ONLY bad-call situation singled out in the blog

barry

Brian: I do appreciate looking at both sides of an issue. In to days world you are not going to make everybody happy...keep up the good work...living out here in Gods country because no one else wants it...your blog gives me great info and then I can decide if I agree or not with in myself.....THANK YOU

Unfortunately to many of us, in your extreme quest to be unbiased, you are actually biased against UCLA. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are.

As many have also said, if you question that last non-call....then you have to question every other non-call for the entire 40 minutes of play. Fair is fair.

Also, you only show one photo frame. Just ONE! Did Shipp move his arm into the shooter's? Did the shooter thrust his arm into Shipp and therefore cause the contact? We can't tell since you only provide a micro-second of data for us to analyze. No whistle was called, so no foul existed.

If you can't handle any subjective criticism towards your approach, then maybe it's time to find another line of work.

One day you're objective, the next you're giving your opinion on who you would prefer to be UCLA's next football coach, leaking information that could harm the integrity of the search and bringing up articles to undermine the integrity of candidates other than the one you were backing.

Consistency is the name of the game, Dohn, and is also something you lack. If you don't care about UCLA, then report objectively, and maybe follow up on the horrible officiating present during the entire game (in my opinion mostly against UCLA, but objectively, present for both teams), or even the monster comeback that the Bruins managed to put together with a few interviews with players or coaches, rather than if a foul should have been called with 3 seconds left on a 67% free throw shooter.

explain the title "luc's lie"

For some reason the sore-loser brigade out there is ignoring all the other calls/non-calls that influenced the game, including a key hack of Westbrook with the game tied. For some, the whole game boiled down to 10 seconds and everything else is ignored.

Fortunately the national story is UCLAs great comeback and total shutdown of the A&M offense.

With the score tied, Westbrook leads a break after A&M makes one of their bad passes. He gets stripped but grabs the loose ball and goes up for a shot and is again stripped when A&M player Jones(?) chops Westbrook's left arm with his right. An outrageous no-call.

In the ensuing scramble for the loose ball, a foul is called on UCLA.

Hey -- this is just an example of the interesting approach to calling the game by yesterday's refs. But the full story on that is all but ignored by the sore loser brigade.

For some reason the sore-loser brigade out there is ignoring all the other calls/non-calls that influenced the game, including a key hack of Westbrook with the game tied. For some, the whole game boiled down to 10 seconds and everything else is ignored.

Fortunately the national story is UCLAs great comeback and total shutdown of the A&M offense.

With the score tied, Westbrook leads a break after A&M makes one of their bad passes. He gets stripped but grabs the loose ball and goes up for a shot and is again stripped when A&M player Jones(?) chops Westbrook's left arm with his right. An outrageous no-call.

In the ensuing scramble for the loose ball, a foul is called on UCLA.

Hey -- this is just an example of the interesting approach to calling the game by yesterday's refs. But the full story on that is all but ignored by the sore loser brigade.

Check these out Brian

http://telemachus.smugmug.com/gallery/4562406_mM8PZ#269210833_zDaG9-A-LB

http://telemachus.smugmug.com/gallery/4562406_mM8PZ#269210224_ZYsdz-A-LB

Thanks Brian

Brian, I really don't get these other people. There's like this witch hunt hysteria to expose you as UCLA hater and it really doesn't make much sense. You're a reporter; you're supposed to be objective! Why don't people get that?!

I was interested in seeing the photo of shipp's block last night and I was glad you posted it. It wasn't like the photo was accompanied by you saying UCLA DIDN'T DESERVE TO WIN THIS GAME THEY GOT OFF EASY AGAIN or anything.

People if you want to see a real bias I think you guys know where to find it. If you can't handle objective reporting and want to read a site through true blue colored glasses I think you know where those are too.

Thanks Brian for a wonderful blog. As a current student who wants to know everything about the football and basketball programs I visit your site way too many times a day. Keep up the good work!

The way the post and question were written made Brian Dohn the story, not the officiating. You could still have expressed your opinion in the question but done it in an objective way.

For example, if the question was, "This photograph clearly looks like an uncalled foul. What is your opinion of the officiating throughout the game?" Saying something like that would've drawn reactions to the officiating, and not Brian Dohn.

Even though the photograph looked like an uncalled foul, the mugging of Darren Collison, mentioned above, looked like a foul on the wrong team. That also occurred at a crucial point in the game.

The story shouldn't have been you. It shouldn't have been one call. It should have been the officiating throughout the game.

I don't think you should ask fans about this situation. You should ask your editor and colleagues. You'll never get an unbiased opinion from us. The very definition of us is "fanatic."

Don't worry about it Brian. Just hard for fans to understand "objective". That doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. Just don't chomp on the antagonism so much.

As for the call? No foul called, so no foul committed. It's always a risky strategy playing for the foul in those situations. Especially in a physical game like that. there was a ton of contact that wasn't called. TX A&M should have realized that. Also, given UCLA's recent history in game like that, I would have gone to a different strategy entirely. They should have been playing to win that game as I don't think they had much of a chance in overtime.

Anyway, we're still alive! Go Bruins!

Hey Brian,

Ignore the petulant children that have learned how to post.

Keep up the good work.

No. It was not a foul.

Brian,

I think you try so hard to be objective that you end up being biased AGAINST UCLA.

Don't fall into the ESPN hype of questioning the last call without looking at the officiating as a whole.

IMO, the refs were letting both teams play and there was missed calls on both sides. Tough to say Texas A&M got hosed when it looked like the refs made some bad calls against UCLA as well.

Bottom line, UCLA advanced and its on to the Sweet 16.

Absolutely agree w/ you Brian. Some UCLA fans, as some fans of any other team, can't ever be objective.

No need to pay attention to all the cry babies who come from BN. They constantly criticize Dohn's journalism, but then still reference his in depth coverage of UCLA, something no other beat reporter can match. Can't give Dohn a hard time then constantly refer to the type of exclusive information only posted on this blog. Keep up the good work Brian!

Funny UCLA fans always seem to think the officiating is against them. In college basketball, UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, and Kansas always get the benefit of a doubt. I'm curious how many of Kevin Love's blocks involved swatting the arm instead of the ball.

Bruin fans. Your team played hard and had a great comeback. Stop worrying about how refs for every close game you have. You clearly get the benefit of a doubt. Not saying its bias, but when a ref hears the crowd go crazy on a K Love block, do you really think his instinct is to blow a whistle even if he saw contact with the arm?

I don't think officials are biased. I just think they are bad. It seems like in every game the officials show up thinking they are the show. Somebody should tell them we watch to watch the players and the coaches, not the officials.

PLH55: Agree KU,(Mike K looks could kill)Duke, and NC always get the calls.(Roy Williams is the biggest cry baby in basketball, was at KU and now NC THINK..KU gets the calls because the crowd is so overwhelming that the refs are not going to call much...watch those 3 you mentioned and when it comes crunch time in a game the call will be made to get them over the hump....maybe UCLA is fallen in to that mode by no fault of there own...UCLA plays the cards that are dealt them and it is not how those cards are dealt.

Brian,

Thanks for trying to present all sides of the story. I don't understand why some readers infer that you're biased against UCLA. Hey, the truth hurts sometimes, and UCLA isn't perfect -- they make mistakes, commit fouls, and act innocent just like every other team does. There's no reason to suspect bias just because you brought it up the possibility of a blown foul call. I suppose they'll accuse Doug Gottlieb of being a hater, too, because he showed a different photo this morning that shows both Shipp AND Collison fouling Sloane. I've been a UCLA fan for over 30 years now and am glad they won last night, but that doesn't change the fact that A&M should have gotten free throws.

Brian,
Just stick to latest tidbits and stuff that you couldn't get into your stories. You don't need to throw in "objective" entries to prove how you are a professional and objective reporter. Let your work speak for yourself.

Brian,
Just stick to latest tidbits and stuff that you couldn't get into your stories. You don't need to throw in "objective" entries to prove how you are a professional and objective reporter. Let your work speak for yourself.

Brian,

Two things:

1) your print article in the Daily News was very good, and was a nice objective piece on the game that put the officiating issues in their proper place.

2) Part of journalism is prioritization and deciding what parts of a story are important, and what parts to emphasize. I think the problem many UCLA fans have is your choice of what is important suggests you have a problem with Howland. Branding him a liar is the most obvious example, but other examples include your focus on perceived slights in the press conference or highlighting his mistake of commenting on the details of Coach Wooden's fall. You can bring up those issues, but they must be done in balance.

3) the job of a sports journalist is to write and report in a way that interests the fanbase of such teams. When things are going well, tell us why, when things are going poorly, tell us why, but when things are going well, don't spend half your columns finding negatives. That is not balance.

Agree with silverlake bruin. I do perceive a bias against Holwand. You do not hesitate to include information that casts him in an unfavorable light. You can call it being objective. I see it as an underhanded agenda.

I use to love this blog Brian...as I told you that I was an addict...

Over the last few weeks...I have defended you to other Bruin fans about your impartial approach to the Bruin Nation....

...But now I am not sure you are neutral at all....if you really don't LIKE UCLA sports..why don't you cover someone else. I am sure there would be many many guys who would love reporting on UCLA Athletics who also love the teams.

If you don't have passion in life for "something", then you won't do a Great job. I and many others don't feel that you have passion for UCLA. I read more passion in Jill Painter's stories for the Bruins!

When you posted that "one" photo of Josh Shipp's foul,
you have essentially taken away a great win and celebration for the Bruins.

There are so many other "missed" or "non" foul calls throughout the game for both teams...but to point out that one is not impartial. Perhaps you should turn your microscope to every frame of the game a dissect it like science project.

I know a lot of UCLA fans who won't read your column anymore. As you continue your style of "impartiality", the UCLA athletic department and coaches will lend you less and less info. This is how this world works...and you are building an adversarial relationship with the Bruin Nation.

I so appreciate the tidbits and info you get on player and situations within the teams...but either be a fan of the Bruins or get off the pot!

My season tickets are right across the aisle from Diane Pucin of the Times. I really respect her because of her approach. She is tough on UCLA when it is call for...and cheers for them through her words when they perform well! That is journalism.

You are covering/writing on the Best Overall program in College Athletics!! Be gracious and grateful for that! Don't bite the hand that feeds you!

I think the Home News Journal in Piscataway NJ could really use your passion! Go for it Brian!

Jetaway,
I would never want to cover a team that I cheer for because it clouds the objectivity. I enjoy covering UCLA very much because the kids are very nice to deal with, and I enjoy college athletics. They are quality kids. Passion for the job has nothing to do with cheering for a team. In fact, that clouds the judgment.

Hey Brian, why don't you get Marc Dellins to take over your blog. People just want happy thoughts towing the company line from someone that is paid by UCLA. That way they can fire the guy if they don't like what he writes.

I can't wait for some of these clowns to take an ad out in the Daily News calling for your job.

You'd think with all the brain power criticizing your writing, these fans could get a few bucks together to upgrade Pauley Pavillion for a 1st rate hoops program.

Brian,

How can u cover UCLA sports on a daily basis and not become a fan. To say that you dont care whether the BRUINS win or lose is...well..leaves me shaking my head. Maybe you should cover the traffic or weather on a daily basis. I'd rather get my BRUIN news from someone who gives a dang.

I'd like to see a column about
UCLA's heart, defense and unwillingness to lose, regardless of the ref's calls.

Brian,

Please ignore everyone who think that you must be a homer to provide news tidbits and up-to-the-minute updates. Of all the blogs for UCLA sports, yours is the BEST when it comes to the kind of updates you provide and the quality of reporting that you do.

What concerns me is that these overzealous fans are going to make Brian lose passion in working for this blog and become resentful of the people that he serves. Please don't let SOME of these fans get to you. I for one LOVE this website and have made it my homepage since the beginning of the football season last year. Keep up the good work and don't change anything.

Heh, people are sensitive. It doesn't say much for us fans if you can't emotionally detach yourself from a question that is virtually innocuous as the result will not change.

Calling Mr. Dohn's boss to degrade him and that you want someone new? That is petty and doesn't say very much good about us fans.

It is a discussion about a situation in the game that would have been important in the final outcome of the game. Nothing more. If certain fans can't handle it, I think they should head over to BN where they would fit in nicely.

Brian, as a temperate but intense Bruin fan I understand your dilemma. Blogs, esp. the subjective aspect, are intended to be attention getting and draw the ire of the bloggers when that focus is contrary to their hardcore inclinations. For me, vetting issues about non-calls or calls is part and parcel of being a fan and wanting the team to win, whether or not the call would subjectively be overturned in a neutral setting. My thoughts are that 1. you adopt a more thick-skinned attitude, knowing full well that you are dealing with overly passionate, sometimes truth rejecting fans, and 2. enjoy the exchange b/c bloggers are only getting in your face due to their immense, at times irrational support of Bruins athletics. Personally, I enjoy being called to the carpet (by reality and at times you) on calls that should not have been and non-calls that . . . well you know. Ultimately, though, I have seen every Bruin team play since 1981 and believe that this is a team of destiny, one with all the tools, so much heart, one for the ages, Alcindor and Walton-esques, with their will to win surpassing bad calls and bad luck. This team will be the champion in 2008, regardless of the circumstances. Blog about that.

Brian,,,you use "objectivity" to shield yourself. The fact is one can be passionate about something and still report objectively.

That fact that you're stated you couldn't care less is a bothersome notion to me. No one is telling you to be a homer, but something is missing when you are not part of the "ucla family".

Maybe it's because this isn't the NY Times or ESPN news, but a small teeny little site that's focused on all things ucla, and being such, we ucla faithfull feel we deserve someone on our side, something like a gathering of uclans who talk about ucla stuff, preferably subjectyively BUT STILL with all the facts in tow.

Another thing is, you have a trulyBAD sense of timing. In other words, you don't know when to shut up.

You start with a poor choice of words "luc's lie" and then follow up with a photo questing a no-call. The first thing that should have come to mind is that NO ONE questioned the call,,,not cbs not espn not anyone at the media tables. so why bring it up,...because it was made an issue with other fan boards? and with an inconsequential photo at that.

"inconsequential photo at that"

It's on the cover of the LA Times sports section. And it is a huge photo.

Yours is a strawman argument, Brian.

We Bruins don't have a problem with your pointing out a bad call--even one which went in our favor.

But hows about for the sake of balance, something you claim to strive for, showing some still shots of some bad call which went the OTHER way?

Having been in attendance, I can tell you there were at least 5 bad calls each way--no less than 10 total.

So, in the interest of fairness, how about some discussion--backed up by pictures--of those bad calls?

Fair is fair!

Brian,

Mr new guy is correct. your response to the UCLA fans calling you out is a total straw man argument.

Who can argue with a reporter striving to be objective, right?

Unfortunately bri, you are not being objective.

Your attitude and writing has clearly changed since dorrell busted out is "football 101" attack on you.

Anyway, since you have no interest in UCLA and no substantial athletic experience, you should maybe just try to stick to reporting rather than opinion pieces.

And frankly, I am not sure that a UCLA blog should be unbiased. I guess maybe trojan fans might log on to read your negativity but I think that UCLA fans would just go read the LA Times blog.

Seriously Bri, just stick to eating nachos and don't choke on one.

regards,

dohn eats nachos.