Nice refs

[hussybulldog]

This won't be a popular view on this board, but I agree with Vopel. Once Drummer was up, I think she was worried that if she didn't brace herself on the way down her whole weight would come down on Lou's head, which it would have. To me, it did not look like she was trying to make "excessive" contact - she was just trying to minimize impact on the way down, and the best she could manage was to try to get her hands on Lou's shoulders to brace the fall. As she went down, her hand slipped off and her arm went around Lou's neck, which was definitely non-ideal. But seriously, ask yourselves what you would do different/better if you're Drummer and go up and then Lou pump fakes and you're suddenly literally falling on top of her.

I agree UCLA was very physical all game, and sometimes pushed the boundaries, but I really don't see what Drummer should have done differently once she was up in the air right over Lou.

To me, the correct call was a shooting foul but not a flagrant or unsportsmanlike.

She can either train herself not to be fooled by a pump fake, or learn how to block correctly, trying to minimize damage does not acquit her from her harmful action.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

UConn touch fouls called over and over. UCLA hard fouls not so much,

I didn't watch that much to know - but that is my wife's and my mantra about the Pac-12, where we have always had decent seats (at UofA) and now have seats on the floor - players get shoved around, players going up for a shot are pulled to the ground, players are pushed - all "no foul". Touch a shooter's arm or touch a body twice in a row - even when there is clearly no harm - guaranteed foul.

Except - they are not generally biased for or against one team at UofA games we have attended and - only Barlow was a PAC ref from the crew you had. So I'm not explaining or excusing - just letting you know that isn't so odd. It is not the way the East Coast ref's (usually) call games, as RU fans also based on what we saw of ref's before we moved west - if those folks were reffing the game, there would be no players left to play in most of Arizona's contests (on either side).

 

[Shenandoah]

The officiating across the board this tournament has been horrible. Yes, I have a UConn slant, but there seems to be an anti UConn bias, whether subconsciously or not. I've also seen underdogs hanging tight with the favorite, only to see touch fouls called on one end, and muggings ignored on the other: both working against the underdog. It's happened enough to be predictable...

 

[my2cents]

Does UConn ever play this way

I was making this comment during the game, we don't, as our players, which were being called for fouls that were way less "physical" would be out of the game by the end of the first half.

 

[UConnNick]

This won't be a popular view on this board, but I agree with Vopel. Once Drummer was up, I think she was worried that if she didn't brace herself on the way down her whole weight would come down on Lou's head, which it would have. To me, it did not look like she was trying to make "excessive" contact - she was just trying to minimize impact on the way down, and the best she could manage was to try to get her hands on Lou's shoulders to brace the fall. As she went down, her hand slipped off and her arm went around Lou's neck, which was definitely non-ideal. But seriously, ask yourselves what you would do different/better if you're Drummer and go up and then Lou pump fakes and you're suddenly literally falling on top of her.

I agree UCLA was very physical all game, and sometimes pushed the boundaries, but I really don't see what Drummer should have done differently once she was up in the air right over Lou.

To me, the correct call was a shooting foul but not a flagrant or unsportsmanlike.

Determining the intent of players suspected of committing flagrant or unsportsmanlike fouls is not part of an official's job. All that matters is the final result of their actions. They're not supposed to be mind readers. Maybe Drummer didn't mean to wrench Lou's neck, but she did, and it could have resulted in a horrific injury. That's one thing the rule is designed to prevent. That was an unsportsmanlike foul.

 

[UConnNick]

A

It's confusing to me because I think the foul normally is envisioned as taking place when both players are on the ground or at least at eye level. Here's the full definition:



Perhaps they just thought it was a violation of e. "hard . . . contact against an opponent." It's just think it's hard to call it either excessive or unnecessary given the circumstances, and the rule doesn't say anything about per se violations for contact at the neck.

Personally, I think they screwed the whole sequence up because it should have been a shooting foul b/c KLS was clearly in the act of going up after the pump fake when she got squashed. But then once the other ref waived that off, they were left with either saying there was no foul or else calling an unsportsmanlike. Given that Drummer had already been very physical, I think they thought it was fair to the game even if it wasn't to the play.

(Also, meta comment: I cannot believe I am devoting paragraphs to defending Missy Barlow, who was the ref who called it a common shooting foul before being overruled. I guess there's a first time for everything...)

A, B and E all apply to the play.

 

[TheFarmFan]

No, Stanford is 75th on fouls CALLED on them. Not the same as fouls committed. Stanford gets the same benefits as ND. It is all about the refs helping one of their own.

That play was rare because it was excessively physical and unique to how teams play UConn.

I get that I'm going into the Huskie den and saying something unpopular, but with all due respect, your arguments seem (a) internally incoherent, (b) nearly impossible to falsify, and (c) sexist, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

You have watched too many Stanford games and now think this is normal.

That play was rare because it was excessively physical and unique to how teams play UConn.

(a) So Drummer's style of play is both "unique to how teams play UConn" but also something I "think is normal" because I've "watched too many Stanford games." Stanford didn't even play UConn this season, so which is it?

No, Stanford is 75th on fouls CALLED on them. Not the same as fouls committed.

(b) How do I disprove the existence of a black swan? Do you want to go through the tape of every non-foul-call play by Stanford this season to show me all the excessive contact we get away with? Over on the Stanford board, some fans catalogued all the ridiculous calls that went against Stanford in the Elite Eight game. We've got homers who will argue just as vociferously that too many calls go against us, and that we get called too often for ticky-tacky nonsense.

At the end of the day, it's only a foul if it's called a foul. Otherwise it's all subjective and open to disagreement. I'm not going to go back and review every non-foul-called play against Stanford, but suffice it to say, this particular criticism of Stanford is a new one that I've never heard before.

Stanford gets the same benefits as ND. It is all about the refs helping one of their own.

(c) Unless the refs all went to Stanford and Notre Dame for college, I assume your insinuation is that female refs help teams with female head coaches. Seriously? If that's the level of respect you have for the officiating, I suggest you go watch competitive fly-fishing instead. That kind of comment comes off as sexist, plain and simple, unless I'm very much missing something.

 

[Artifact]

Sad to say, the ref's are destroying womens basketball. Their inconsistency & favoritism, by giving away the foul line, towards certain teams, is making the games very dubious! Sorry, 'Napheesa', UConn has produced too many 'All-Americans' in the past, they need someone else on the Wade trophy & Naismith awards !