Nice refs

[jaydee602]

I don't understand the notion that claims that an even number of fouls called is indicative of a fairly called game. Please explain.

Oh, I wasn't praising the refs. I thought they were inconsistent & they let UCLA knock around the Huskies. And many times, officials even up the fouls after they sabotaged a team. And I haven't seen a well- officiated game yet in this tournament. I just didn't think they were a major factor in UCONN's struggles vs. UCLA. None of our players were in foul trouble & UCLA had 2 starters with 4 fouls.

 

[npignatjr]

Agree completely. Unfortunately, our kids play 5 on 7 too often. It makes me wonder if the officials EVER watch a replay to see just how bad they are.

When you have an agenda which some seem to have, why would you think they care?
If the NCAA really care about the game they would demand/expect better officiating, last year's final four really was 3 games with exceptional athletes defined by atrocious game deciding calls or non calls.

 

[jaydee602]

I think we should be resigned to the fact that the officiating will be inconsistent for the rest of the tournament. It is a serious problem that ESPN & the NCAA will not address. Kara Lawson justifies questionable calls, but won't criticize the officials. The foul shots were 38-10 in the MSU/ ASU game, but nobody is questioning the disparity. Even the "top refs" become whistle- happy & affect the outcomes. We just have to hope that we don't get a 46 foul fiasco like last Sunday from unqualified, renegade refs.

 

[jaydee602]

When you have an agenda which some seem to have, why would you think they care?
If the NCAA really care about the game they would demand/expect better officiating, last year's final four really was 3 games with exceptional athletes defined by atrocious game deciding calls or non calls.

And those games were officiated by the "cream of the crop" who decided to determine the outcome. And nothing is being done to improve the officiating!

 

[ricky]

Oh, I wasn't praising the refs. I thought they were inconsistent & they let UCLA knock around the Huskies. And many times, officials even up the fouls after they sabotaged a team. And I haven't seen a well- officiated game yet in this tournament. I just didn't think they were a major factor in UCONN's struggles vs. UCLA. None of our players were in foul trouble & UCLA had 2 starters with 4 fouls.

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.

 

[jaydee602]

It took them 5 minutes to figure out this was a flagrant foul? And the UCLA coach was upset?

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?"

 

[chrissaran]

That was not the biggest goof of the refs. They actually called a non-shooting foul. Meaning UConn would not shoot FT's and had to take the ball from the sidelines. Clearly a pump fake by KLS is part of a shot attempt. That was so blatantly wrong, it was criminal.

Totally agree. Katie Lou got mugged. UCLA does what every other school does. Foul UConn over and over because they're not going to call everyone. As Doris always says, you can't not call fouls to make the game closer.

 

[Bronxjeff]

I only got to see the 4th quarter live last night, and am watching the replay now. It is infuriating! UCLA is playing b'ockey (hockey basketball) and the refs are abetting them. Every shot we make should be an "and one" and every breath we take near a Bruin is called a foul!

 

[ochoopsfan]

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?"

It is amazing that a seasoned writer , like Mechelle Vopel is "supposed" to be, does not know what a flagrant foul is in WBB. She had nowhere to land? That doesnt give her the right to do a choke hold on Lous neck. she also shoved her from behind with her leg or hip. Watch the replay at the 51.30 mark on the video tape.

Now one other thing to watch on the play. Missy Barlow appears to be calling a 2 shot foul, I believe she puts up 2 fingers as if the player is shooting at the 51.44 mark on the tape. The other ref, the blond with the pony tail shakes her head no. Now the ref who said no, look at her view at the 51.55 mark of the tape. She appears to be blocked by both Williams on UConn and Cordasco of UCLA. How in the world would she be able to over ride the call and say Lou wasnt making an upward shooting motion.

 

[UConnNick]

It took them 5 minutes to figure out this was a flagrant foul? And the UCLA coach was upset?

It should have taken about five seconds. It looked like KLS had a temporary hood ornament attached.

 

[UConnNick]

Jobbed by the refs - again! People here are starting to sound like orange fans.

Which orange? Tennessee, Syracuse, or both? I'd vote for both.

 

[TheFarmFan]

It is amazing that a seasoned writer , like Mechelle Vopel is "supposed" to be, does not know what a flagrant foul is in WBB. She had nowhere to land? That doesnt give her the right to do a choke hold on Lous neck. she also shoved her from behind with her leg or hip. Watch the replay at the 51.30 mark on the video tape.

Now one other thing to watch on the play. Missy Barlow appears to be calling a 2 shot foul, I believe she puts up 2 fingers as if the player is shooting at the 51.44 mark on the tape. The other ref, the blond with the pony tail shakes her head no. Now the ref who said no, look at her view at the 51.55 mark of the tape. She appears to be blocked by both Williams on UConn and Cordasco of UCLA. How in the world would she be able to over ride the call and say Lou wasnt making an upward shooting motion.

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.

 

[donalddoowop]

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.

 

[uconnfan68]

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?"

So intent is now involved in calls?

 

[the Q]

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.

If she thought it was a flop, that would explain it.

 

[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.