Was it a foul?

Tough to tell on TV. It looks like a lot of ball on the regular angle, but you've seen the photo. Shipp's left hand goes straight up and comes straight down pretty quickly. I suppose there could be contact with the arm, but "grab" is a pretty loaded word. There's no way way he "grabbed" his arm and let go that quickly.

Was it a foul? Who knows. These guys changed their mind about what did and what didn't constitute a foul all night.

Looks like much more of a foul than what happened to DC against Stanford and it makes me feel almost horrible about the win.

Btw, Brian. Why wasn't that shot by Josh Carter disallowed IF the ball hits the top of the backboard is considered out of bounds? Was that a legal basket? The refs giveth and they taketh away.

well,,,what is it going to be,,,,let them play, or call every foul!

The photo was shot at a poor angle to determine if there was a foul on the play.

Go Bruins!!!

I think Brian just bumped us down 2 more spots because of that =)

And to answer your question, no it was not a foul. No whistle was blown. No call was made by referees (who are the only authorized individuals allowed to make calls, not members of the "media"). So no, there was no foul.

a foul implies that a ref blew his whistle

a foul implies that a ref blew his whistle

11 banners = no call at the buzzer...
Bruins win...deal with it.

It's a meaningless question, unless you analyze all the questionable calls in the game (including when Collison was thrown to the ground with no call).

Your English skills often leave something to be desired. Although I'm usually not bothered by that, the way you asked this question is inflammatory.

"Was it a foul?" Of course, it wasn't a foul, Brian, because a foul wasn't called. The correct question to ask is, "Should a foul have been called?"

Now, go back and look at all 20 photographs the Times posted. How many possible fouls against Texas A&M do you see?

I think you're looking for an argument.

Brian, with all due respect, I saw the play in real life under the A&M basket and no, it was not a foul but a block in a game that was a rough and tumble, bare-knuckler with lots of banging on the inside and out, hard screens and sharp box-outs, a game of heart and desire and unteachable talent, where Kevin hits two key shots down the stretch while having 7 blocks! for a guy who can't play defense, then DC carrying the team to the hole with visions of Tyus leading the charge in '95. Fantastic gut check win, no foul, on to Phoenix, case closed.

You are on the UCLA assignment, right? Seems like sometimes you don't even LIKE UCLA!

What the .... You know it's getting pretty down right old w/ this "was it a foul or not bull...." I mean come on, again to try and take away from UCLA's win on a single call/no call, please it's getting old. Again, there were calls and no calls from the officiating on both sides. And in this case, of your picture, best scenario would have been T-AM gets to shoot free-throws to TRY and tie the game, with time left for UCLA for a last shot!!! Again UCLA battled back from double digit and found a way to win!!!
I don't know if this link I tried to paste here works, http://media.scout.com/media/image/53/532752.jpg , but in this picture the angle looks as though Collison got him on the elbow, which he clearly didn't on the picture you posted. So what gives! All I know is UCLA got the "W" and move on, as should all the haters!!! GO BRUINS!!!!

By the way, Brian, why didn't you write a post with the same "was it foul" title right after the play where Collison got tackled in the first half, yet somehow got called for the foul (perhaps the ref thought he fouled the floor).

I've got news for you, a college basketball game lasts 40 minutes. There are lots of whistles blown and not blown. Not all are accurate. For example, there may have been a game a few weeks ago where a Stanford player committed one of the most obvious double dribbles in the history of basketball. In that same game, a Stanford player may have scored a basket on an obvious charge. Yet I didn't see you mention either of those calls.

This is why people think you may have a slight problem with anti-UCLA bias.

WOW! A simple question and this is the response?

First, its a valid question - was it a foul? Yes, a better way of asking the question may have been "should a foul have been called?" - but its the same question. Second, yes it looks like a foul in the photo.

And yes, a game lasts 40 minutes and calls can go either way during the course of the game. But you are kidding yourself if you think a call made or not made in the last 10 seconds is the same as missing one in the first half.

And before you all jump on me for having Brian's back on this, I have been a UCLA fan for the better part of 40 years. I do not like my writers (or announcers for that matter - having grown up listening to Vin Scully and Chick Hern) to be "homers." If you look at the game objectively - which is what Brian is paid to do - it is a valid question, pure and simple.

Brian,

Seriously, do yourself a favor and get off the Ucla beat.

It is obvious that you are not happy and it has really effected your work.

Frankly, you were never good to begin with and your writing has gotten worse.

Seriously, go write obituaries and let Jill cover the bruins.

This was not called a foul, should it have been?

Hey Brian,
Why do you always look to stir up controversy. First, you get your panties in a bunch because Howland's phone goes off during the press conference, big deal. Then you are hurt when Luc makes fun of you for not knowing who the maghreb are and decide to call him and coach Howland liars. Now you feel the need to question the call at the end of the game. If you feel the need to question the last call, you should be willing to sit down and analyze the entire game, frame by frame, and determine every questionable call against either team. Then come here and question whether UCLA should have won this game, which is essentially what you are doing.

Remember who comes to this UCLA sports blog: UCLA fans. Yankee fans don't come here to read your stuff. Packer fans don't come here. Piston fans don't come here. It's only the hardcore UCLA fans that bother to read a thing you write. While I wouldn't expect or even want you to fawn over all things UCLA, you should at least take a look at Scott Wold and see the job he does covering SC. At least he writes with an eye towards his base and promotes SC far more than he denigrates them.

To be honest, I'm tired of your reporting and would very mucn like to have someone else cover the UCLA beat. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where I can request such a change.

Hey Brian,
Why do you always look to stir up controversy. First, you get your panties in a bunch because Howland's phone goes off during the press conference, big deal. Then you are hurt when Luc makes fun of you for not knowing who the maghreb are and decide to call him and coach Howland liars. Now you feel the need to question the call at the end of the game. If you feel the need to question the last call, you should be willing to sit down and analyze the entire game, frame by frame, and determine every questionable call against either team. Then come here and question whether UCLA should have won this game, which is essentially what you are doing.

Remember who comes to this UCLA sports blog: UCLA fans. Yankee fans don't come here to read your stuff. Packer fans don't come here. Piston fans don't come here. It's only the hardcore UCLA fans that bother to read a thing you write. While I wouldn't expect or even want you to fawn over all things UCLA, you should at least take a look at Scott Wold and see the job he does covering SC. At least he writes with an eye towards his base and promotes SC far more than he denigrates them.

To be honest, I'm tired of your reporting and would very mucn like to have someone else cover the UCLA beat. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where I can request such a change.

wow, you keep looking to bring the bruins down but they keep winning. Did you watch the game? Did you see some of the calls against ucla and non-calls on A&M? I've never heard so many boos at a game. The liar post about Howland and Luc starting was absurd. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but there are so many posts like these. How fitting we have an east coast writer doing the bruin beat reporting. UCLA finds a way to win. They beat A&M and the refs tonight. Bruins move on!

I don't think Brian's trying to stir up controversy here. When I watched the game I, too, wondered if it was a foul. It looked like it was (or should have been called a foul, philosophy of language experts) from one angle on the camera.

I was surprised the announcers did not say anything about it. That said, it is a win. I don't think Brian's trying to say UCLA should not have won or anything like that.

It obviously would have been a different game (but still likely to go UCLA's way) if the refs had called a foul here. I think us in the Bruin community are a bit sensitive after being taken down the past couple games for questionable calls. Questionable calls are just that--questionable--and it's fair for a reporter to bring up a little controversy about it. Hopefully Brian won't write a full piece on this--that would be rather pathetic--but this is his blog where he covers all things UCLA, and this is something UCLA.

He's entitled his opinion and you, yours, but it is unfair to say he is stirring up controversy. The controversy was generating by strange officiating and an LAT photo that may run tomorrow, but it obviously does little to harm UCLA.

Brian, and Jill-

Why dont you respond to any these comments, I mean after all, your integrity is being questioned...

I was at the game and there were tons of bad calls that went against UCLA. If we got away with one, so be it.

Brian,

I am a HUGE fan of your blog and as a UCLA student, check it constantly throughout the day; it is fair to say I am addicted. I appreciate your hard work and you really do a great job covering UCLA and getting as much inside info as possible.

With all that being said, I specifically registered just so I could comment on this. I do enjoy how your unbiased input because I can get plenty of Bruin support on campus and from other sources. However, I do question sometimes whether some posts are necessary. Once in a while, you post something like this and I just shake it off, giving you the benefit of the doubt because I truly enjoy your blog and think you do an extraordinary job.

But this just left my disgusted and there comes a point when enough is enough. I come back from watching the game with a bunch of buddies, extremely relieved, still nervous, but so excited and pumped for the rest of the tourney. Of course, when I get back home, I instantly flip open my laptop and go straight to your site, and what do I see, "was is a foul?" I mean, come on!! Is that what is really important after such a huge game?

Maybe after the Stanford/Cal games there is justified talk about their were legitimate concerns; from the opposing players, from the coaches, fans, media, and of course, Bruin players too. But not ANYWHERE was a foul for the last play of the game mentioned here....it was not discussed after the game, not anywhere on ESPN or Sportingnews, or any media, and not an issue with fans. UCLA just won an extraordinary game on the biggest stage possible and you have to ask whether or not their was a foul or not on the play? This was a physical game that was played over 40 minutes and as everyone has discussed before me, ridiculous to question something out of nothing that wasn't a concern among anyone.

You do a fantastic job and your blog is amazing; but sometimes you just go "too far" with trying to be unbiased and this comment was really just uncalled for unnecessary after an exciting game for Bruin fans. Give UCLA and Texas A&M some credit for a great game...everyone else seems to, why can't you? If you don't have anything nice to say after a game like that, then don't say it at all.

Thanks again for all you do, truly, I am such a fan but I would like to politely agree that this post was out of line with the circumstances.

"WOW! A simple question and this is the response?"
______________

Listen,,,this whole thing came to a head with the "luc lies" post. so posting about the no-call merely adds fuel to the flame. a foul was not called. neither espn nor the national media have questioned it. so imo, this is a flame of no importance. so what's you're call,,,do you let them play or do you call all game ending plays. didn't we go through this before,,,and recently.

There has been some terrible officiating of late. This game had to be one of the worst I've seen. It's a shame some will focus on these particular calls or non-calls. The bruins received some horrible calls and it altered their game at times. They backed off playing agressive a few times after receiving quetionable calls which lead to easy baskets for A&M. Can we get some competent refs for games in the big dance???

here come the haters.

all ball.

and while i'm at latimes.com thanks to the link, i think im going to stay over there and read their blog from now on.

dude, people need to chill. we won the game, move on.

brian (and jill), love this blog -- great pipeline of bruin info. keep up the good work.

The calls or none calls all day and all night in all the regions where absolutely horrible....if you go back and look at some of the calls and no calls in this game it evened out at the end...........

It was no foul! Everybody knows that with the money being paid to the refs this season, any foul called against UCLA must involve both hands grabbing the other team's player! C'mon and get with the program! Now, everybody over to my house for the Easter BBQ and cash distribution. Slick Rick will be there, too!

No surprise about this thread. Anything remotely controversial will be slanted against us from Brian's perspective. No worries. More fodder for the team to keep rising to the occasion and winning.

Last I checked, Rutgers stopped playing ball weeks ago. Maybe he should go back and follow them since that's truly where his heart is. Do they even have a team?

All,

My criticism isn't with Brian bringing this up, it is that he made one post about the game, and this is it. THIS is his focus, what he thinks is most important about the game.

If he brought up the foul as the fourth or fifth post after commenting on DCs or KLs brilliant game, the poor overall officiating, etc., I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

Also, if he would either apologize for calling Ben Howland a liar, or prove he is one, that would probably help to build some good will as well. Instead he doesn't address any of this criticism.

Brian,
I think you fouled out on this one.

I agree with the comments that Brian like the media in general seems to think the only bad calls that count are the ones that happen on the last play of the game.

The fact is blaming a victory or a lose on the officials is just the American way of not taking responsibility for your actions.

On that play if they called a foul they would have been criticized just like in the UCLA Stanford game for calling a very iffy foul.

That said we are extremely lucky to have Brian covering the Bruins. He is objective and not anti-Bruin and he gets us more insight and information then any other source and unlike some similar places he is FREE.

If the was a Bruin hater he wouldn't answer all these questions. So lets not be babies every time he says something we don't like.

Keep whining and maybe he will take another beat. Then you will find out what you lost.

Sloan is a 68% foul shooter. Odds are he misses one of two even if they do call a foul.

Let's move on here.

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 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!

Perhaps the Home News Tribune in Piscataway is hiring?!

I am so disappointed!

People, people. Brian is a beat writer, not a homer blog operator. Simply put, Sloan from aTm WAS hacked. Say what you will, but UCLA has benefited from some calls/non-calls of late and had UCLA been on the other end of these controversial officiating decisions, we'd be just as mad as the other teams are.
Keep reporting the facts, Brian.

When I watched it on television, it looked like a clean block. The picture obviously shows otherwise. We got another break, let's face it. It is sad such a great game end like that.

There are TWO bruin hands.

westy...you cannot say that that hand near the elbow is impeding the shot. just because it is there doesn't mean it is there with force.

shipp's...you cannot say that shipp is GOING DOWN on his swat. for all you know he may be in the process of swatting SIDEWAYS.

AND THAT,S THE PROBLEM WITH AN ISOLATED STILL PHOTO. YOU CANNOT SEE THE ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!

ONE SHIPP'S AND WESTY'S HANDS. you cannot tell if westy is IMPEDING the shot,,only that it's there. you cannot tell if Shipp is swatting downward or in the process of swatting sideways.

in other words,,,STILL PHOTOS ARE USELESS BECAUSE THEY DON'T SHOW THE ACTION!!