**** You, Matt Howard

**El Sid** · Mar-20-2011, 07:26 AM

Not that Pitt didn't play poorly, but Matt Howard had me practically punching holes in my desk with all his ****ing ******* flops. Why the **** didn't he just play soccer? I hope the ****er flops himself into a concussion that ends his basketball career. What a ****ing disgrace to sports!

It was extra kick in the balls that he was the ******* to get fouled in the last second. If I had been a ref in that game, I would NEVER have given that ***** that call.

Apparently he is known for it:

**El Sid** · Mar-20-2011, 07:41 AM

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pb...S/4010341/1002

Butler's Matt Howard Knows How to Sell a Flop

By Pete DiPrimio
of The News-Sentinel
INDIANAPOLIS — Butler forward Matt Howard draws charges the way Meryl Streep draws Oscar nominations, not that we're implying Howard sometimes acts, as in flops, when even the slightest contact comes his way.

Well, maybe we are.

“I know I have a pretty bad reputation for (flopping),” Howard said. “I might have done a bit too much early on. I'm a little bit smaller than some guys out there, so I don't feel like it's always a flop, but there are times when you've got to try to sell something. Almost everybody does it.”

Entering Saturday's Final Four semifinal with Michigan State, Howard is by far the most foul-prone Bulldog. He has 118 fouls in 873 minutes and 34 games, an average of one foul every 7.4 minutes, 3.5 per game. Butler's next most comes from guard Ronald Nored, who has 89 fouls in 1,001 minutes.

All this is reminiscent of another famous fouler-flopper, Dane Fife. He was a defensive stopper for Indiana and is now the head coach at IPFW. Fife recruited Howard hard when Howard was at Connersville High School.

“I still talk to Dane,” Howard said. “He's a funny guy. My family still goes to some IPFW games and they'll talk to him. He doesn't have to do that, but he does. He's a great guy.”

**vandelay industries** · Mar-20-2011, 09:53 AM

Pitt was also the beneficiary of a few charging calls. The refs called about every charge/block foul a charge on the offense.

Say what you want about the calls themselves, but the refs were consistent and that's usually all we want as fans from refs.

**El Sid** · Mar-20-2011, 10:28 AM

Never said anything about the "calls themselves."

**Waiting for LaRoche** · Mar-20-2011, 10:56 AM

Howard's flops were ridiculous.

But I can't get over how Pitt gift wrapped that game at the end.

What was Pitt even doing lined up for that last foul shot?
If Butler can rebound, and hit a full court shot with .09 of a second left in the game then let them try.
Even if you are there to get the tip, once you see the ball bouncing there way back the **** off!

Anyways, now Howard will have to wait a few weeks before he can rejoin the Saturday Night Live cast.

**Waiting for LaRoche** · Mar-20-2011, 10:59 AM

**vandelay industries** · Mar-20-2011, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by El Sid

Never said anything about the "calls themselves."

I understand.

But on plays that Pitt players took charges, some (not me for the record) could just as easily say they were flopping too.

I mean let's face facts. In college hoops anytime a player steps in to take a charge there's a degree of flopping involved. Did Howard embellish? Yup. But the Pitt guys did too and they benefitted from some charging calls also.

The refs were at least consistent on that issue.

**exNCite** · Mar-20-2011, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Waiting for LaRoche

Howard's flops were ridiculous.

But I can't get over how Pitt gift wrapped that game at the end.

What was Pitt even doing lined up for that last foul shot?
If Butler can rebound, and hit a full court shot with .09 of a second left in the game then let them try.
Even if you are there to get the tip, once you see the ball bouncing there way back the **** off!

Anyways, now Howard will have to wait a few weeks before he can rejoin the Saturday Night Live cast.

Correct!! As much as I might like Jamie Dixon, his coaching in the bigger games leaves a lot to be desired.

**El Sid** · Mar-20-2011, 01:14 PM

The calls were consistant. Not complaining about that. I'm still angry with Pitt as they still should have won. They were given the game, and gave it right back.

If Pitt players flopped (I don't doubt they had a few of their own) it's because they HAD to. They HAD to level the playing field somehow, and the refs did their jobs by obliging. I really believe that Howard flops had an impact on the entire game. (I've never seen so many charging calls in one game in my life.) I think that's why you saw two fouls called in the last 2 seconds.

My beef here is not with the refs, and it's NOT giving Pitt an excuse for losing. My problem is Howard's actions, IMO, show complete disrespect for the game, and very, very poor sportsmanship. That's why I made the comment about "if I were a ref." I'm thinking, "If you're gonna be a jackass, and make us make idiot calls to keep the game level, than I'm gonna relish NOT giving you that call in the end." But actually, that technically isn't true either, because I would have just ignored ALL questionable charges, as I have zero tolerance for *****es in sports.

I also wanted to add, that before the game, Howard talked about wanting to play Pitt at a physical level. Came sounding badass with guns blazing, then he starts his flopping bull****.

**Skeeter** · Mar-20-2011, 04:27 PM

Game just sucked. Pitt should have never let those guys hang around. Can we say choke?

**Palmetto Steel** · Mar-20-2011, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by WYsteel

Can we say choke?

... Isn't that how you spell "Pitt"?.....

**The Sodfather** · Mar-21-2011, 06:07 AM

I swear only Pitt could lose a game in that fashion.

As for flopping, did anyone watch the Cuse/Marquette game? Ray Jackson literally wrapped his arm around the waist of a Marquette player, pulled him down on top of him and the ref called an offensive foul on the Marquette. Couldn't believe what I saw.

**Kaytusk** · Mar-22-2011, 08:16 AM

I don't know what was worst: the officials who were clueless about the unsportsman Howard, or the Pitt coaching.
Certainly, a person who plays a sport like a man (instead of hiding behind rules) is a player to be respected.
As for the last calls of the game... sure they were fouls, but the point is their significance. For all their faults, the Canadians got it right - in hockey, you practically have to break a guy's leg to get a tripping penalty in the last two minutes of a tie game, and that's the way it should be. Why let the officials decide the game (at the end). The blocking foul on Pitt should have been called - since it interfered with a legitimate chance for Pitt to get a last second shot off. The foul on Howard prevented nothing but a 90 foot throw at the goal (i.e., no chance of going in), and so, use a little common sense NCAA. You won't find this in any rule book, but it's written in big gold letters in rules of good sportsmanship. Why cannot these so-called analysts figure out this simple logic.
As for the loss, it's another data point on the Pitt NCAA tourney chart, which has been dismal. Coach was probably thinking about getting an easy put-back for a score at the foul line - the kids should have been warned about fouling (and probably were). But, it is inexcuable for icing the ball and getting a shot clock violation in the last seconds of a tight game. John Wooden was probably turning over in his grave. How many more "maybe next years" do we have in us?

**vandelay industries** · Mar-22-2011, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Kaytusk

I don't know what was worst: the officials who were clueless about the unsportsman Howard, or the Pitt coaching.
Certainly, a person who plays a sport like a man (instead of hiding behind rules) is a player to be respected.
As for the last calls of the game... sure they were fouls, but the point is their significance. For all their faults, the Canadians got it right - in hockey, you practically have to break a guy's leg to get a tripping penalty in the last two minutes of a tie game, and that's the way it should be. Why let the officials decide the game (at the end). The blocking foul on Pitt should have been called - since it interfered with a legitimate chance for Pitt to get a last second shot off. [HIGH-LIGHT]The foul on Howard prevented nothing but a 90 foot throw at the goal (i.e., no chance of going in)[/HIGH-LIGHT], and so, use a little common sense NCAA. You won't find this in any rule book, but it's written in big gold letters in rules of good sportsmanship. Why cannot these so-called analysts figure out this simple logic.
As for the loss, it's another data point on the Pitt NCAA tourney chart, which has been dismal. Coach was probably thinking about getting an easy put-back for a score at the foul line - the kids should have been warned about fouling (and probably were). [HIGH-LIGHT]But, it is inexcuable for icing the ball and getting a shot clock violation in the last seconds of a tight game.[/HIGH-LIGHT] John Wooden was probably turning over in his grave. How many more "maybe next years" do we have in us?

I was under the assumption that he was just trying to heave the ball out of there so as to just burn the last 1.4 seconds and go to overtime.

Regardless as to whether it was a shot (which I don't think it was) or a heave, he got mugged pretty bad.

I think in hoops they do let a lot of ticky tack fouls go at the end of the game, I mean we all watched enough hoops in our life and over the weekend to see that, but when they're blatant, as both of those were at the end, they gotta call them.

Also, as far as the shot clock violation thing, yeah it's inexcusable, but I'm not sure how that's on Dixon. I mean I really doubt that was the plan he gave them. I'm sure the plan was to run the clock and get off a shot. The players just didn't execute on that one.