A two-minute video analysis that pretty much summarizes UCONN v. UCF

[connie]

I realize I am in the minority here, but Im not convinced that the violation call was correct, IF she was called for faking the free throw.

It was stated earlier in this thread, that it doesn’t matter whether she double-clutched the free-throw on purpose or not. That would be true in high school, but not in college.

The ncaa womens basketball rulebook clearly states on page 80, in Rule 9, Section 1, Article 1b that it’s a violation if “the free-thrower PURPOSELY fakes a try” (capitalized by me).

http://www.wpwboa.org/app/download/16709631/2021-2023+Rule+Book.pdf

Watching it live and on replay, I can’t see any indication that she purposely faked it, or think of any reason for her doing so.

1. If she is called for faking it, she loses her attempt.
2. If she is not called for faking it, 3 things could have happen:
A. If it results in a UConn violation, all she gets is to try it over if she misses.
B. If it results in a teammate violation, she loses her attempt.
C. If it results in a simultaneous violation, it’s awarded to the team with the arrow, which happened to be UConn.

It’s all a lose-lose situation for her to fake that free throw. It’s much more likely that after missing the first one, she had a bad case of nerves and double-clutched.

However, I think the result of the call was fortunate for the referee who called it. It appears to me that a simultaneous violation occurred and UConn, with the arrow, would have been awarded the ball anyway. That would be 2c in my paragraph above.

Thoughts, any one?

I basically agree with you. If the freethrower purposely fakes the shot, then yes, she loses the attempt. "Purposely" means with purpose, not by accident. That largely entails a judgment call. Here, it did not appear the shooter double-cluthed with the purpose of faking. (And my guess is that if the player was wearing a UConn uniform, most Boneyard participants would agree that there is nothing in the demeanor or conduct of the player suggesting a purposeful fake.) As you also note, the circumstances fortify a conclusion that there is nothing to be gained by faking a shot.

That said, if there was no purposeful fake then the play should have been blown dead upon the lane violations, which I perceive to be at best simultaneous (Dorka and Sanders). In that event, Smith would have been entitled to a "do-over". Upon the purposeful fake, the play is blown dead. Can't have a lane violation if the play is dead.

 

[connie]

In all the analyses that I've read about why UConn won, one basic fact has been overlooked. UCF shot 21% below its average on free throws. On 20 FT attempts that results in 4 fewer points. UConn shot 9% better than its season average and on 23 attempts that means 2 more points. If both teams had shot their season average UCF would have one more point than UConn. In the end the pressure got to UCF while UConn met the moment. I have to believe that home court advantage had to play a role.

True enough. But UCF shot 50% from the field on 3PT (5-10). Their season average is about 30%. So, had they shot their season average, they would have been 3-10, resulting in 6 fewer points. Not being critical (stats are fun and instructive). But at the end of the day, the margin between winning and losing at the highest level of competition is very fine. Difficult to distill things down to any one or two or three things.

 

[diggerfoot]

In all the analyses that I've read about why UConn won, one basic fact has been overlooked. UCF shot 21% below its average on free throws. On 20 FT attempts that results in 4 fewer points. UConn shot 9% better than its season average and on 23 attempts that means 2 more points. If both teams had shot their season average UCF would have one more point than UConn. In the end the pressure got to UCF while UConn met the moment. I have to believe that home court advantage had to play a role.

Sigh, fans will always result to ”what if,” when in reality there always are multiple “what ifs,” plus the change in one would create changes in how the game proceeds. “What is” the bigs hit their normal percentage of lay-ups. For Juhasz alone that’s about six points.

It’s possible the team was too hyped up from the reception the students gave them … Auriemma had that opinion. In which case your explanation for the “what if” in free throws is more than negated by the “what ifs” in lay-ups.

But in reality how the game is played changes if a “what if” situation changes. After an atrocious first quarter Uconn adjusted to their opponent. After UCF got down by double digits UCF had to change their style of play in order to increase possessions. UConn did not respond well to that change. If the game remained tighter due to free throws then UCF does not change to a style that catches UConn off guard until later. That could have changed the outcome or not.

”What ifs” in terms of abnormal play is mostly meaningful for what happens in the last seconds, not for the broad arc of a game.

 

[HopJim]

This is worth listening to. As is often the case, I agreed with part of what Megan Culmo said and disagreed strongly with another claim of hers.

First, the disagreement: She criticized the officiating, saying that the officials called too many fouls and took the game away from the players. Definitely the officials called the game tightly, but I suspect that the supervisor of officiating who assigned them to the game warned them of the history of UCF-UConn games in the AAC, and told them that their first priority was to keep control of the game and prevent it from degenerating into a basketball version of the "Slap Shot" movie.

That is why they called all the fouls, tightly on both teams. After the incident where Paige and the UCF player wouldn't let go of the held ball, they warned both teams that any repetition of that would lead to technical fouls being called (per the announcers). And when Paige got knocked to the floor by a UCF player in the third quarter, they spent several minutes reviewing the video before deciding (correctly, in my opinion) that it was only a common foul.

After the players on both teams noticed how tightly the fouls were being called, they decided that "selling" calls by flopping might work -- and it did. (Yes, UConn players did it too.) But the refs were determined to maintain control of the game, even if they went for a few flops. I think that was a justifiable decision from their perspective.

Now, as to Megan's other comment that I agree with: She praised Azzi in particular for maintaining her composure in the game, especially in handling the ball against the UCF pressure. Despite comments on the Boneyard to the commentary, I thought that all of the UConn guards who played in the second half did a very good (not perfect) job of maintaining custody of the ball against a very high level of pressure by UCF. UCF had only 4 steals in the entire game, and the turnover margin was 13-to-20 in UConn's favor. I will bet that is far better than most teams do against UCF's defense.

In most of the defensive AND offensive fouls, players were knocked down, totally held, etc. Many ticky tact fouls went uncalled. The only suggestion I would have looking back is for the refs to have stopped the game, pulled both coaches aside, and tell them the blatant hand to hand combat needed to stop for the benefit of both teams. At least this would have reduced some of the post game complaints.

 

[drweo]

I realize I am in the minority here, but Im not convinced that the violation call was correct, IF she was called for faking the free throw.

It was stated earlier in this thread, that it doesn’t matter whether she double-clutched the free-throw on purpose or not. That would be true in high school, but not in college.

The ncaa womens basketball rulebook clearly states on page 80, in Rule 9, Section 1, Article 1b that it’s a violation if “the free-thrower PURPOSELY fakes a try” (capitalized by me).

http://www.wpwboa.org/app/download/16709631/2021-2023+Rule+Book.pdf

Watching it live and on replay, I can’t see any indication that she purposely faked it, or think of any reason for her doing so.

1. If she is called for faking it, she loses her attempt.
2. If she is not called for faking it, 3 things could have happen:
A. If it results in a UConn violation, all she gets is to try it over if she misses.
B. If it results in a teammate violation, she loses her attempt.
C. If it results in a simultaneous violation, it’s awarded to the team with the arrow, which happened to be UConn.

It’s all a lose-lose situation for her to fake that free throw. It’s much more likely that after missing the first one, she had a bad case of nerves and double-clutched.

However, I think the result of the call was fortunate for the referee who called it. It appears to me that a simultaneous violation occurred and UConn, with the arrow, would have been awarded the ball anyway. That would be 2c in my paragraph above.

Thoughts, any one?

How would one determine whether it was purposeful or not?? Cant simply ask her! Which means the ref has to make the call.

 

[CL82]

I'm not convinced Brittany Smith made a bad decision. Looks like she double-clutched--probably due to pressure, nerves, indecisiveness, etc. But decision or no decision, I had to look this one up after the fact. According to the NCAA's 2021-22 and 2022-23 Women's Basketball Rules Book, Rule 8, Sec. 5, Art. 1.b., "The free-thrower shall not purposely fake a try . . ." Any such purposeful try at a fake is a violation. Rule 9, Sec. 1., Art. 1.b. If this is the first (or only) violation, then "the ball becomes dead when the violation occurs and no point can be scored by that throw." Rule 9, Section I PENALTY, a. When no further freethrow is to be had, the ball is awarded to the opponents. Rule 9, Section I (PENALTY) a.1.

As for lane violation(s), it looks as if Dorka and Sanders both simultaneously put a foot down on the lane prior to Smith releasing the ball, contrary to Rule 8, Sec. 5, Art. 1.e. (Best view of this is from the end line looking back at Smith. But it is very difficult to discern which player's foot made lane contact first.) If so, that is a violation by both players. Rule 9, Sec. 9, Art. 1.e. As per Rule 9, Sec. I PENALTY, c.: "If there is a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored. Remaining free throws are administered or play is resumed by the team entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred."

Assuming no "purposeful" fake, there was arguably a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball became dead, and Smith would have been entitled to another shot. (The dead ball means, in effect, her second shot was never taken.) If, however, her freethrow was a purposeful fake try, then dead ball, no point can be scored, and the ball goes over the UConn.

Here, it did not appear to me that Smith purposely tried a fake shot (though I suppose that was impliedly the ref's call). In that event, she should have been entitled to another shot. Not saying this critically. I don't know how the refs can keep track of some much going on all at once, much less in the waning moments of a tournament game when weird stuff like this happens.

Good post. I didn’t realize that there was specific “purposeful” language. My sense is always been once you start your motion toward the hoop, you have to shoot and that stopping and restarting was a violation. While, in practice, that may be true, the rules do require a subjective decision as to intent by the referees. Thanks, I learned something new today.

 

[dogpause]

I don't know what you were watching, but the video makes it clear -- the FT shooter double-clutched but NEVER moved her feet. The only lane violation was by the student bodies of both teams.

That wasn't why it was a violation. It was because her teammate was the first to step in the lane. The announcers had it wrong, but if you look at the video you'll see. Had the UConn player stepped in first it was still a violation on the shooter -- sort of like a balk in baseball.

 

[connie]

Good post. I didn’t realize that there was specific “purposeful” language. My sense is always been once you start your motion toward the hoop, you have to shoot and that stopping and restarting was a violation. While, in practice, that may be true, the rules do require a subjective decision as to intent by the referees. Thanks, I learned something new today.

Re. "purposely fake" . . . The rule--"the free-thrower shall not purposely fake a try"-- is not as clear as it could be. (Does it make sense to speak of a fake without purpose?) In my opinion, the rule suggests that the free-thrower not only volitionally engage in conduct but do so with the intent to deceive the opposing team (e.g., induce a lane violation). True, intent always has a subjective element. But that does not mean it cannot be inferred objectively. (Indeed, in the eyes of the law intent may even be inferred if there is no professed subjective intent. In the words of William Lloyd Prosser, intent "must extend not only to those consequences which are desired, but also to those which the actor believes are substantially certain to follow from what he does. ... The man who fires a bullet into a dense crowd may fervently pray that he will hit no one, but since he must believe and know that he cannot avoid doing so, he intends it.")

In this instance, it did not appear to me that Brittany Smith purposely faked a try. It's a judgment call.

 

[DrummerDee]

There was no explanation. The commentators were confused and fumbling for a reason for the TO. I guess the Boneyard knows more than the analysts do.

the commentators are very often confused.

 

[faithfulfan]

This is worth listening to. As is often the case, I agreed with part of what Megan Culmo said and disagreed strongly with another claim of hers.

First, the disagreement: She criticized the officiating, saying that the officials called too many fouls and took the game away from the players. Definitely the officials called the game tightly, but I suspect that the supervisor of officiating who assigned them to the game warned them of the history of UCF-UConn games in the AAC, and told them that their first priority was to keep control of the game and prevent it from degenerating into a basketball version of the "Slap Shot" movie.

That is why they called all the fouls, tightly on both teams. After the incident where Paige and the UCF player wouldn't let go of the held ball, they warned both teams that any repetition of that would lead to technical fouls being called (per the announcers). And when Paige got knocked to the floor by a UCF player in the third quarter, they spent several minutes reviewing the video before deciding (correctly, in my opinion) that it was only a common foul.

After the players on both teams noticed how tightly the fouls were being called, they decided that "selling" calls by flopping might work -- and it did. (Yes, UConn players did it too.) But the refs were determined to maintain control of the game, even if they went for a few flops. I think that was a justifiable decision from their perspective.

Now, as to Megan's other comment that I agree with: She praised Azzi in particular for maintaining her composure in the game, especially in handling the ball against the UCF pressure. Despite comments on the Boneyard to the commentary, I thought that all of the UConn guards who played in the second half did a very good (not perfect) job of maintaining custody of the ball against a very high level of pressure by UCF. UCF had only 4 steals in the entire game, and the turnover margin was 13-to-20 in UConn's favor. I will bet that is far better than most teams do against UCF's defense.

Gonna agree with you, refs had to call this game close, might have needed to be called even closer! Both teams were fortunate no one got seriously hurt!

 

[faithfulfan]

How would one determine whether it was purposeful or not?? Cant simply ask her! Which means the ref has to make the call.

Yep, it's the ref's call, not anyone here commenting

 

[Oracle9]

I thought it was a good video to post because it personally gave me perspective. My first thought following the UCF game was that we were lucky to win, and if this the way we're going to play, we're in a lot of trouble going forward. The truth is, it's easy to sit back and criticize, far removed from the action that is taking place on the court. There were a lot of missed layups and this seems to have been a problem all season, so I can't argue that it's not a problem that needs to be fixed. On the other hand, when you're playing in a very physical game as this is, and the expectation may be that, if you don't take your shot quickly you're going to get hammered into oblivion, I can certainly see that having a psychological as well as a physical impact on performance. I suppose surviving a physical "grind it out" sort of game can be a good thing in the long run but, hopefully, we'll be able to play a bit looser (e.g., play the basketball we're capable of and have more fun) in the games to follow.

I agree with your take this is the kind of game that builds confidence (it had shades of Arizona). Every game can't be pretty-SC barely won theirs too and so did IU. In a game like this it's who will make the shots at the end when needed most to close out. Even better they showed grit and toughness that 'Dawg' I liked seeing it, I think you should play like you want it, and I think they're doing that. What's happening is that teams saw a giant in the wbb world struggling and smelled blood- so to speak. As Geno said (pp) Everyone is coming for us we are the underdogs. I can tell you IMO the majority of the brackets and prognosticators believe that. It's seems this team has other ideas.