Thursday, March 28, 2024

3-pointer is difference

February 3, 2003
Spartan sophomore forward Alan Anderson, center, celebrates with senior forward Aloysius Anagonye, right, and freshman center Paul Davis, left, on Sunday at Breslin Center. The Spartans won 68-65. —

For the second time in as many games, the MSU men's basketball team had to rely on a 3-pointer to seal a crucial conference victory.

This time, the shot was a last-second heave from sophomore forward Alan Anderson to close the first half.

The highly controversial shot was immediately counted, and the Spartans (12-8 overall, 4-4 Big Ten) used the shift in momentum to their advantage, escaping Breslin Center with a 68-65 victory over No. 13 Illinois.

Anderson's shot appeared to be about a half-second too late, but referee Tim Higgins emphatically signaled the score to the delight of an especially raucous home crowd.

When questioned about the validity of his shot, Anderson broke into a broad smile - careful not to tip his hand on what he thought the call should have been.

"Yeah, the refs called it," said a beaming Anderson. He finished with a game-high 15 points and five rebounds.

Freshman center Paul Davis said the shot gave the Spartans a much-needed boost going into the second half. Anderson's trey cut the Illini (15-4, 5-3) lead to only six, 40-34.

"Nine's a whole different number than six," Davis said. "We knew with that shot we were still in the game. It was a huge building block going into the second half."

In addition to sharing the game-high in scoring (15 points), Davis snared a game-high eight rebounds and swiped five steals.

Sunday's squeaker was the first time this season MSU won after trailing at the half, bringing its record in such situations to 1-7. The victory also improved the Spartans' home record in conference play to a perfect 4-0.

MSU has beaten two ranked opponents at home in the past week alone, downing No. 19 Indiana in a 61-54 thriller Tuesday night.

Despite the shot's controversy, officials were bound by NCAA rules to allow Higgins' call stand. Guidelines prohibit referees from using a monitor to review a buzzer-beating shot to end the first half. Only game-ending or overtime scenarios are deemed revisable.

Ken Sudall, Big Ten observer of officials, explained the officials' ruling on the floor.

"By rule, it's only mandatory to review a shot at the end of the game or overtime," he said. "There was no option to go to the video, except when there is a timing error or malfunction.

"There was no doubt in (Higgins') mind that the shot went off in time."

To Illini head coach Bill Self's dismay, the questionable play was what he said killed his squad's second-half momentum.

"That was actually a momentum crusher for us," Self said. "It was bang-bang - could've gone either way."

The shot capped a 10-2 run to end the first half.

In the second half, however, the officiating seemed to go the other way when Ballinger was called for a charging foul when he drove to the hole. An incensed Izzo pleaded his case to the officials, arguing a defensive foul should have been called instead of the charge. It could have resulted in a 3-point play for the slumping Ballinger.

MSU players and the Illinois camp spoke freely on Anderson's buzzer-beating triple, Spartans head coach Tom Izzo preferred to let the play - and the officiating - speak for itself.

"I'm getting a lot of questions on the last shot of the half, and I'll question (senior forward Adam) Ballinger's layup," Izzo said. "That was a 3-point play, so I'm just going to call it even.

"And not answer any questions about (Anderson's shot)."

The Spartans were down 62-61 with just over four minutes left when Ballinger was called for the offensive foul.

Ultimately, though, it was Anderson's 3-pointer that proved to be the winning margin.

Anderson said the entire contest - narrow as it was in spite of his shot - proved something about his Spartan teammates.

"We can play under pressure," Anderson said. "Now, two in a row we've done that."

Discussion

Share and discuss “3-pointer is difference” on social media.