Nice refs

[the Q]

So intent is now involved in calls?

I get her point.

If she can brace herself and not crash her entire body on KLS it’s probsvly better. She did a poor job of it.

And excessive isn’t exactly an objective measurement.

That was a call I wasn’t gonna be mad if they didn’t call flagrant.

 

[socalhusky]

I have watched all of the games and have seen some of the worst officiating I have ever seen. I have seen players intercept a ball in the front court and land or dribble into the back court. That is over and back. There have been traveling calls when the player did not move it's pivot foot. Hard contact allowed and touch contact called. I believe that since ESPN is showing the games, there are certain teams they do not want eliminated before the FF. It's a lot about the dollars. If the game is close don't expect the underdog to get a favorable unless the underdog is playing UConn. After each game the officials are supposed to be evaluated. I wonder what they are hearing.

 

[HopJim]

Dumb call by Kara, who is usually exceptional and knows way more than me about basketball. I would ask Kara how can it be a no call? KLS was sent 5 feet out of bounds and to the floor, where she in no way can participate in the follow on play, assuming a no call. Don't you think players on both sides deserve to be on the floor to have any chance of playing fair? So it is either a foul on KLS or a foul on UCLA.

Lately, Kara has tried so hard to appear neutral that she often hides her knowledge. She never wants to cheer so her lack of emotion is beginning to make her presentation dull.

 

[HopJim]

Re: reffing-- This is increasingly the style of too much of women's hoops, which Kara, for example, seems not only to accept but also approve of and recommend. But the body-on-body, reach-and-grab approach to defense makes UConn's pass-screen-cut with rapid man and ball movement very hard to run. Hence, in the last quarter, as Geno predicted, we had to create offense one-on-one. Certainly less aesthetic and "fluid," but that seems to be what current refing dictates.

Glad Geno finally noticed this. His lack of change the first 3 quarters seemed to be a bit of "a sleep at the wheel" but with Crystal's help UConn's changes worked. Not sure I want to go into future games with few subs and have the tired starters have to press full court.

 

[HopJim]

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.

This isn't a court of law. Not sure when "intent" should factor into a ref's decision. You may not intend to take someone's head off, but if you hit her a tech needs to be called.

 

[TheFarmFan]

This isn't a court of law. Not sure when "intent" should factor into a ref's decision. You may not intend to take someone's head off, but if you hit her a tech needs to be called.

Who said it was a court of law? You're the one who keeps using the word intent, not me. That's not part of the definition of a unsportsmanlike foul - the critical definition is what it means to engage in "excessive" contact.

Personally, I think it's questionable whether Drummer's contact was excessive given that she was going up for a block (not excessive) and assuming KLS was going to jump up and forward to make a layup (reasonable assumption). Instead, KLS pump faked and suddenly Drummer was literally falling down on top of her. I don't think using her arms to brace her fall on KLS's shoulder (and landing one of them on her head instead) was excessive; the alternative would have been to literally have her whole body come down on KLS's head and neck, which would have been very dangerous for BOTH players.

If you guys think Drummer's contact was "excessive," tell me what you think she could have done instead that wouldn't be. If you can't, then it's pretty hard to call it "excessive," since there was no less intensive contact she could have administered given how the play unfolded. And remember, this all happened in a split second.

If anything, what bothered me was that I think Drummer should have helped KLS up, and the fact that she didn't made it look worse all around. But having watched the play 5 times now, I don't really know what she could have done differently, and I think her jump itself would not be excessive had KLS gone for the shot as she assumed.

 

[uconnfan68]

Who said it was a court of law? You're the one who keeps using the word intent, not me. That's not part of the definition of a flagrant foul - the critical definition is what it means to engage in "excessive" contact.

Personally, I think it's questionable whether Drummer's contact was excessive given that she was going up for a block (not excessive) and assuming KLS was going to jump up and forward to make a layup (reasonable assumption). Instead, KLS pump faked and suddenly Drummer was literally falling down on top of her. I don't think using her arms to brace her fall on KLS's shoulder (and landing one of them on her head instead) was excessive; the alternative would have been to literally have her whole body come down on KLS's head and neck, which would have been very dangerous for BOTH players.

If you guys think Drummer's contact was "excessive," tell me what you think she could have done instead that wouldn't be. If you can't, then it's pretty hard to call it "excessive," since there was no less intensive contact she could have administered given how the play unfolded. And remember, this all happened in a split second.

If anything, what bothered me was that I think Drummer should have helped KLS up, and the fact that she didn't made it look worse all around. But having watched the play 5 times now, I don't really know what she could have done differently, and I think her jump itself would not be excessive had KLS gone for the shot as she assumed.

I ~thought~ the rule was contact above the neck was a flagrant. Period. If so, what else could that foul be? There was basically no contact below the neck.

 

[TheFarmFan]

I ~thought~ the rule was contact above the neck was a flagrant. Period. If so, what else could that foul be? There was basically no contact below the neck.

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:

a. Not a legitimate attempt to make a direct play on the ball; b. Contact designed to negate an opponent's obvious advantageous position; c. Contact away from the ball against an opponent who is clearly not involved in the play, designed to stop the game clock or prevent it from starting; d. Contacting an opponent making a throw-in. This act shall also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary. (See Rule 4-9.1.g.); e. Excessive, hard and/or unnecessary contact against an opponent; and f. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary

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...)

 

[Bronxjeff]

Who said it was a court of law? You're the one who keeps using the word intent, not me. That's not part of the definition of a unsportsmanlike foul - the critical definition is what it means to engage in "excessive" contact.

Personally, I think it's questionable whether Drummer's contact was excessive given that she was going up for a block (not excessive) and assuming KLS was going to jump up and forward to make a layup (reasonable assumption). Instead, KLS pump faked and suddenly Drummer was literally falling down on top of her. I don't think using her arms to brace her fall on KLS's shoulder (and landing one of them on her head instead) was excessive; the alternative would have been to literally have her whole body come down on KLS's head and neck, which would have been very dangerous for BOTH players.

If you guys think Drummer's contact was "excessive," tell me what you think she could have done instead that wouldn't be. If you can't, then it's pretty hard to call it "excessive," since there was no less intensive contact she could have administered given how the play unfolded. And remember, this all happened in a split second.

If anything, what bothered me was that I think Drummer should have helped KLS up, and the fact that she didn't made it look worse all around. But having watched the play 5 times now, I don't really know what she could have done differently, and I think her jump itself would not be excessive had KLS gone for the shot as she assumed.

Given the context of them having fouled pretty egregiously throughout the game, I think some upset by BY'ers is warranted. Look back at the play when their player twisted her knee - her teammate had just run a football play block into Megan's back - no call. Or the blocking call on Lou in the 4th qtr, where the Bruin clearly ran her down with an arm bar.
The refs allowing this style of play is how good players get injured - maybe not even on a play where they are fouled.

 

[Engineer90]

I would agree that wcbb officials have been very strange in general. This can't be by mistake. I dread watching an ND matchup. ND has asterisks all over there record.

Every year, the first thing I look for is when we will need to face ND. If it isn't in the championship game, we have a potential problem.

 

[dtbtbtb]

During the game I thought the refs were terrible, so I watched it again and they were not terrible, they were ridiculously bad with clear bias against UConn. Every time a UConn player went up to catch a pass a UCLA player will hit them in the mid back and all the holding (what happened to playing defense by moving your feet and not by grabbing with your hands). Drummer had about 15 fouls during the game out of which only 4 were called...

 

[Padutch5]

Mechelle Voepel from ESPN was squawking on twitter that this should not have been a flagrant foul, so I sent her this photo. Here is her ridiculous response:
"She went for the pump fake and had nowhere to land, then put her arms down to try not to crash. Would it have been better she just fell on top of Katie Lou with her whole body?"

I guess the rule book has been amended to include “ intent”. Gee ref, “ I didn’t intend to put her in a choke hold”.

 

[Engineer90]

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.

You have watched too many Stanford games and now think this is normal. The fact that she had to brace herself on Katie's shoulders tells you all you need to know about how excessively physical she was playing. As someone said, playing physical means fouling. It is up to the refs to call it.

 

[Zanzman]

UCLA was holding and bumping our players off screens and impeding their movement, especially on Lou. When we use the word "physical"...it really means fouls that are not being called.

Does UConn ever play this way

 

[Engineer90]

Huh? I don't think anyone thinks of Stanford as an overly physical team (we're 75th of 345 D1 teams in the country in terms of fewest fouls committed this season), and the play with Drummer going down right on Lou is pretty rare - precisely why the refs took a while to figure out what to do with it. I'm not sure I've seen anything close to that play one time this season, by Stanford or by any other team.

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.

 

[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 !