How about Three Big Cheers for the Refs last night.

[NCorBust]

I never really understood the "home cooking" mantra.

.
The refs call it self-preservation.
.

 

[NCorBust]

???? 19 foul shots vs 15 for Stanford ???? The "new math" ?

.
Bad vision? Check the box score UCONN 11-21 Stanford 8-11
.

 

[AboutWeston]

Of course, now I understand! Like in amateur tennis - your opponent gets a bad call, so you concede the next point...


UCONN shot 52% from the charity stripe because they felt that their visitors from the west coast were getting bad calls

 

[CCinCT]

.
Bad vision? Check the box score UCONN 11-21 Stanford 8-11
.

My bad - looked at PF's not FT's.

 

[Tonyc]

Blame the refs. Listen Cferr and I were right there in the second row and Stanford got away with alot. If Im calling the game it wouldnt have been as physical. BTW why did UConn outrebound Stanford. Did it have something to do with the ref? Yes Nekas fouls were legit and she didnt argue or look surprised. If UConn had made a couple more foul shots and a couple of more layups they wouldve won by over 20.

 

[Icebear]

There were a number of missed calls, some on simple things. Most all were non critical. Basically, a solid B early season performance for the refs. No one favored overall.

 

[boontonbomber]

???? 19 foul shots vs 15 for Stanford ????

The "new math" ?

i taught math, and,contrary to public opinion, there never was such a thing as the" new math" .

 

[intlzncster]

I never really understood the "home cooking" mantra.

The metaphor? Or the theory? If it's the theory, just watch enough games at TBA.

I believe there's a number of studies out there that show refs favor home teams.

 

[cardfan]

I hate it when fans blame a loss on the officiating. It is extremely unbecoming and it reeks of sour grapes. Truth is there were missed calls on both sides of the ball. There were times when Stanford players were draped all over Stefanie and she looked at the referee as if to say "what you didn't see that"...and the ref just gave her a blank stare... There were times when a call was made on Stanford and the people around me were saying "It's about time."

It is for that reason...I believe it is always better just to say congratulations and move on...the sour grapes blame the officials approach is always classless in my opinion.

Nowhere did I say the refs were the reason we lost. I congratulated you for the win. I said before the game we'd lose by 12 because of guard play. I was right. No sour grapes, at all. We are very, very young. I didn't expect much on the road on the 4th game of the season.

I responded to Old coach's separate thread about the officiating. It was my opinion that they let a lot go in the paint. I said we got calls last yr. too. Home court advantage is a reality.

 

[Icebear]

Interesting statistical analysis of home court advantage and officiating bias.

Link http://www.teamrankings.com/blog/nba/nba-home-court-advantage-really-just-the-refs

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Very interesting.

In general, I like Tennessee. That has never blinded me to the fact that they often "get the calls", not only at TBA, but also on the road. I firmly believe both UConn and Stanford "get the calls" to some degree.

Its simple - "respect". I don't think refs necessarily favor the home team, but they perceive the "better" player / team as more likely to be fouled than to foul. I know refs "scout" - and come into games with pre-conceived notions. Never mind the individual preferences of individual referees and the tendancy of conference referees to call games different from other conferences. The PAC 12 is ref'd completely differently than the Big East - and there is a difference in style of play. Whether the ref's respond to the style of play or vice versa I certainly don't know.

I didn't think the game was necessarily badly refd, btw, but I'm not a Zentz or Wesley Dean fan in general.

 

[Bestiarius]

Of course you guys were happy. Nneka sat on a ticky tack 2nd foul and you were in the bonus early both halves. They missed the call on Toni being out of bounds before the half. They left a lot contact go. I'd give them a B-.

Edited- sorry typing on iPhone

Toni's out of bounds call was blown by the ref, but it wasn't as bad a call as it appeared. Slo-mo replay showed Toni drove for a layup (missed) on the left side. Her momentum carried her out of bounds. She turned around facing the court and stood out of bounds watching the fight for the rebound. Suddenly, the ball was tapped her way. She realized that she was out of bounds and jumped to get back on the court as the ball headed in her direction. The issue for the ref wasn't where she was standing when she held the rebound (a good 8 inches in bounds), but was she in bounds before she touched the ball. Both she and the ball were in the air simultaneously. If the ball hit her hands before her feet hit the court in bounds the call would have been correct. In fact, she landed first by a fraction of a second but this was hard for the ref to see. It looked like a badly blown call because she was obviously standing in bounds with the ball after the play was over. The ref had to watch her feet and her hands simultaneously to get the call right. Probably impossible to do on that play, thus the home court "best guess". It was like a look-and-listen play in baseball, only in basketball, it's not possible to hear the foot hit the court while watching the ball arrive.

Yes, they did let a lot of contact go. Great for the fans, but the players probably had a hard time getting out of bed the next morning.

 

[JRRRJ]

i taught math, and,contrary to public opinion, there never was such a thing as the" new math" .

Sorry, BT. There was a New Math. Fortunately, I just managed to miss it, as it was implemented poorly in most schools. Very controversial, and died in relatively short order. See the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I was in school in the 60s - in a relatively good school system - but thankfully didn't have any of that stuff.

 

[boontonbomber]

Sorry, BT. There was a New Math. Fortunately, I just managed to miss it, as it was implemented poorly in most schools. Very controversial, and died in relatively short order. See the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math

we are certainly off topic here, but since you responded i thought i would also. of course there was something called the new math, but my comment had to do with the idea that there is never really much of anything "new" in math. i taught from the early sixties right thru the nineties. in the sixties we began spending time on set theory, bases other than 10, non-euclidean geometry, abstract algebra,etc., but only after focusing on the appropriate basics for the age level. my experience with mixing these ideas in with the basics was very positive. for example, there's no better way,imo, to get student understanding of borrowing in subtraction than to borrow,say, in base eight. properly taught, these concepts really stretched student thinking. emphasis on these ideas did not die in my department, and i exposed students(jr. high and hs) to them throughout my career. you might have been unfortunate to have missed being exposed to math taught this way. i agree that proper implementation may have been the problem, and i think that was unfortunate for math education in this country.

 

[Icebear]

of course there was something called the new math, but my comment had to do with the idea that there is never really much of anything "new" in math. i taught from the early sixties right thru the nineties. in the sixties we began spending time on set theory, bases other than 10, non-euclidean geometry, abstract algebra,etc., but only after focusing on the appropriate basics for the age level. my experience with mixing these ideas in with the basics was very positive. for example, there's no better way to get student understanding of borrowing in subtraction than to borrow,say, in base eight. properly taught, these concepts really stretched student thinking. it did not die in my classroom, as i continued to use these ideas thru all of my years of teaching. you may not have been fortunate to have missed it.

I remember all that stuff in our classrooms in CT. I loved that stuff and found it exciting and fun.

 

[DaddyChoc]

I hate it when fans blame a loss on the officiating. It is extremely unbecoming and it reeks of sour grapes. Truth is there were missed calls on both sides of the ball. There were times when Stanford players were draped all over Stefanie and she looked at the referee as if to say "what you didn't see that"...and the ref just gave her a blank stare... There were times when a call was made on Stanford and the people around me were saying "It's about time."

It is for that reason...I believe it is always better just to say congratulations and move on...the sour grapes blame the officials approach is always classless in my opinion.

I read about "fathom fouls" anytime the ND Final Four game is talked about.... sooooo I think it goes both ways. Im sure you're talking about ref complaining overall, correct?

 

[boontonbomber]

I remember all that stuff in our classrooms in CT. I loved that stuff and found it exciting and fun.

glad to hear that,ice. it was certainly more fun to teach than multiplication of mixed numbers.