Reason for non-call on final play

[nutmegger]

After watching the replay a number of times, I noticed that both the referee under the basket and the referee on the near sideline had absolutely no angle from which to see the play. The referee underneath could only see the backs of the defenders and the side referee only the back of the shooter. There was probably significant uncertainty in both their minds about what happened. That in addition to the importance of the call likely caused the no-call.

 

[CocoHusky]

The 3rd ref is standing on the baseline under the basket and had a very clear view of the play.

 

[nutmegger]

The 3rd ref is standing on the baseline under the basket and had a very clear view of the play.

That ref on the baseline is one of the two I mentioned and he had a clear view of the backs of the defenders with no angle (side view) to see the verticality of the defenders.

 

[lenbo]

After watching the replay a number of times, I noticed that both the referee under the basket and the referee on the near sideline had absolutely no angle from which to see the play. The referee underneath could only see the backs of the defenders and the side referee only the back of the shooter. There was probably significant uncertainty in both their minds about what happened. That in addition to the importance of the call likely caused the no-call.

Hey, there’s always good old-fashioned swallowing the whistle down the stretch too. I remember playing for a playground championship that was play to 50. At about 40, it turned into tackle basketball, but the toughest survived. Refs swallow their whistle in many sports down the stretch. It was pretty chippy the whole game, especially near the end. Who can survive despite those constraints? Toughness is what usually perseveres, unless you can skate or dribble around like Gretzky.

 

[osceola48]

In the much copied still shot of the three players, I see Aaliyah's right hand squarely on the ball. If there is a block and also contact, isn't that usually ruled as a block? Need help from people more familiar with the rules to respond.

 

[Conndog]

The elephant-in-the-room reason is: it wasn't obviously a foul! Not in real time anyway, in slow motion and after seeing replays, it still isn't obvious. If there was contact, it took place after the ball had been blocked by Edwards. The refs let much worse go without calling a foul throughout the game especially for Baylor. On this play, there were two UConn defenders standing their ground against a solo Baylor player hoping for a miracle or to get bailed out by a call. Most people saying it was a foul are reaching that conclusion from still photos & not from watching the actual play when it happened. In real time, it certainly wasn't obviously a foul, and I'm glad it wasn't called. UConn played better and should have won by a larger margin, but Baylor got away with tons of contact that wasn't called. You want to say that Baylor is aggressive? Then how come Baylor can be aggressive but UConn can't be? C'mon, accept defeat gracefully, and give UConn some credit for playing well against a tough opponent.

 

[huskies29]

Stronger refs would have made the calls on Baylor they needed to early and stopped the constant clutching, grabbing and pushing by Baylor and the game would have settled into a better basketball game. The way it was called half of Baylor’s team should have fouled out by the third quarter including carrington who had about 7 fouls in a 5 minute span in the third quarter! Baylor has no complaints this game IMO. They got away with murder throughout the game!

 

[my2cents]

In real time, Carrington is jumping away from the contact and falls down. Any "freeze frame" contact that shows touching is clearly not a foul based on the amount of contact NOT called during the game.
Also, very rarely do the refs bail out an offensive players bad choices on a shot, after nine blocks , up to that point, the refs were used to seeing Baylor being stuffed all night.

 

[Zinethar]

I doubt Geno or CD would teach that hooking of the arm play Baylor used more than the once seen in the other thread on Paige. Geno has often said those things are called fouls because they are not allowed. One that I thought was blatent was on Liv who was trailing a break away to try to block the layup and was tripped from behind and slid about 10 feet on her stomach. No call as the officials were watching the ball.

 

[Lynx23]

The elephant-in-the-room reason is: it wasn't obviously a foul! Not in real time anyway, in slow motion and after seeing replays, it still isn't obvious. If there was contact, it took place after the ball had been blocked by Edwards. The refs let much worse go without calling a foul throughout the game especially for Baylor. On this play, there were two UConn defenders standing their ground against a solo Baylor player hoping for a miracle or to get bailed out by a call. Most people saying it was a foul are reaching that conclusion from still photos & not from watching the actual play when it happened. In real time, it certainly wasn't obviously a foul, and I'm glad it wasn't called. UConn played better and should have won by a larger margin, but Baylor got away with tons of contact that wasn't called. You want to say that Baylor is aggressive? Then how come Baylor can be aggressive but UConn can't be? C'mon, accept defeat gracefully, and give UConn some credit for playing well against a tough opponent.

I thought it was only me so I resisted posting, but Edwards' hand is squarely on the ball, with her hand arched above the shooter's face in the still photo I've seen. I don't see a foul there. Possibly ONO, but I don't know enough about this sort of foul to say if Edwards' block supersedes ONO's possible foul. I do agree, however, that it wasn't an obvious foul and there is too much ado being made about it. There sure are a lot of UCONN haters out there! People are going to see what they want to see, as long as it is consistent with their own set of beliefs. If you're a Baylor fan, you likely feel you should have won the game and so it is consistent with your belief system that a foul should have been called on the play. Vice versa UCONN. In fact, ONO and Edwards' feet were firmly planted while the Baylor player left the ground and appears to be driving into one or both UCONN players to draw a foul. On a really bad day for Baylor, a charge might have been called. That's my belief system coming into play. Bottom line, the game was called with a "let them play" mindset throughout, and it was often UCONN who was on the receiving end of a non-call. That's indisputable. Those pictures, many of which I've seen, are decisive. So cry me a river! Time to play on.

 

[CTBballfan243]

Chris (knuckles) Nilan was talking about the game on TSN 690 Montreal this afternoon. He said it was a travesty that Baylor didn't get to the foul call.

He didn't watch the game, just saw the highlights of the last play.

 

[TheGOAT23]

The officials had a clear view of a majority of the plays. They just chose to swallow their whistles.

No one told me that UCONN were playing the Oakland Raiders of the 80’s. Paige could have been seriously injured last night. I’m singling out Paige because she was the smallest player on the court, but she has a heart of a Simba ? !

 

[Sonny44]

Missed calls are part of the game.
What about the time Paige got clobbered by two defenders on an attempted layup?

 

[Hoops66]

I thought it was only me so I resisted posting, but Edwards' hand is squarely on the ball, with her hand arched above the shooter's face in the still photo I've seen. I don't see a foul there. Possibly ONO, but I don't know enough about this sort of foul to say if Edwards' block supersedes ONO's possible foul. I do agree, however, that it wasn't an obvious foul and there is too much ado being made about it. There sure are a lot of UCONN haters out there! People are going to see what they want to see, as long as it is consistent with their own set of beliefs. If you're a Baylor fan, you likely feel you should have won the game and so it is consistent with your belief system that a foul should have been called on the play. Vice versa UCONN. In fact, ONO and Edwards' feet were firmly planted while the Baylor player left the ground and appears to be driving into one or both UCONN players to draw a foul. On a really bad day for Baylor, a charge might have been called. That's my belief system coming into play. Bottom line, the game was called with a "let them play" mindset throughout, and it was often UCONN who was on the receiving end of a non-call. That's indisputable. Those pictures, many of which I've seen, are decisive. So cry me a river! Time to play on.

You have made several good points. I would also add that if you watch both Liv and AE after the block, they have their arms raised high above their heads. In a one second play, and since the ball did go forward, the refs who may have been watching the ball ruled it a block.

 

[AmeriConn]

The 3rd ref is standing on the baseline under the basket and had a very clear view of the play.

Maybe he blinked?

 

[CL82]

I thought it was only me so I resisted posting, but Edwards' hand is squarely on the ball, with her hand arched above the shooter's face in the still photo I've seen. I don't see a foul there. Possibly ONO, but I don't know enough about this sort of foul to say if Edwards' block supersedes ONO's possible foul. I do agree, however, that it wasn't an obvious foul and there is too much ado being made about it. There sure are a lot of UCONN haters out there! People are going to see what they want to see, as long as it is consistent with their own set of beliefs. If you're a Baylor fan, you likely feel you should have won the game and so it is consistent with your belief system that a foul should have been called on the play. Vice versa UCONN. In fact, ONO and Edwards' feet were firmly planted while the Baylor player left the ground and appears to be driving into one or both UCONN players to draw a foul. On a really bad day for Baylor, a charge might have been called. That's my belief system coming into play. Bottom line, the game was called with a "let them play" mindset throughout, and it was often UCONN who was on the receiving end of a non-call. That's indisputable. Those pictures, many of which I've seen, are decisive. So cry me a river! Time to play on.

If Naismith were wearing a striped jersey, it clearly was a foul. It is at best borderline under the way the game is played today and given the amount of contact including intentional shoves away from the ball and and hacks on the shooter that Baylor was committing all night, it wasn’t even close to a foul within the context of last night’s game.

 

[HuskyNan]

Oh good, another thread on the foul ?

 

[fly2themoon]

The 3rd ref is standing on the baseline under the basket and had a very clear view of the play.

How do you know the 3rd ref had a clear view? For all you know, the 3rd ref could’ve been looking at something else.

 

[Superhuskies]

I don't believe, by the TV view,
that there was any UConn foul made on Carrington, which was called, when she drove baseline at 33 seconds-- looks like she just fell down between the two Huskies..after shooting ....

 

[CocoHusky]

How do you know the 3rd ref had a clear view? For all you know, the 3rd ref could’ve been looking at something else.

 

[LCConnFan]

In real time, Carrington is jumping away from the contact and falls down. Any "freeze frame" contact that shows touching is clearly not a foul based on the amount of contact NOT called during the game.
Also, very rarely do the refs bail out an offensive players bad choices on a shot, after nine blocks , up to that point, the refs were used to seeing Baylor being stuffed all night.

IMO Carrington was NOT going for the shot. She was just going to be fouled knowing then she had 2 free throws, with no contest. That's why she had that look on her face. It wasn't from missing. It was from the lack of a call!

 

[CocoHusky]

IMO Carrington was NOT going for the shot. She was just going to be fouled knowing then she had 2 free throws, with no contest. That's why she had that look on her face. It wasn't from missing. It was from the lack of a call!

Carrington was clearly feeling herself and trying to draw fouls and made the last minutes about her not the team. She actually got bailed out on the shot prior to the last one because I thought AE made a better play on that than she did on the final play. On that play Carrington ignored Smith and drove at two defenders and you can clearly see Smith pounding the floor in frustration of not getting the ball. The refs are human and this might have been a case of well you (Carrington) tried this last time and we gave you the call we not going to bail you out again.

 

[fomalhaut]

Whether the block was a foul is irrelevant; Baylor decided in the first quarter to turn the game into a rugby scrum (not the first time either: I still remember Brittany Greiner pulling down Stefanie Dolson from behind, which should have been an ejection). Paige Bueckers should have had abouit 10 more foul shots (plus one more time out at the end). You can't play the way Baylor did and then whine that a foul at the end wasn't called. At least a couple of the non-calls on Baylor fouls should have been not only fouls, but flagrant fouls. The people complaining about the non-call at the end couldn't possibly have seen the whole game.

 

[MD#12Fan]

I truly believe that when big disagreements arise, for example political debates, it helps to start talking at the philosophical level. What is a foul to begin with? Why do we need to call fouls at all? It's not as crazy a question as it sounds. Back up, let's start over. As an elementary school teacher, when kids have assembled into some sort of game, what am I looking for, in terms of problems. IMO the thing you start with, the foundation of any set of rules is fairness. Does one player have an unfair advantage over another player? Couple nuggets before hopefully a few comments:

* Basketball is not football. IMO if a player with the ball goes into a tight space, they need to be able to do something in that space. George Allen of the Redskins wrote a book called Run to Daylight. That ain't basketball. It is not a foul if the offensive player flails around in a tight space, in which they "got nothing". A foul in that situation is called a "bailout call". LeBron (why he tweeted) gets 5 of them a game. Referee call: Play on.

* What's your thoughts on when a call should be made. Do you decide a game on a weak call? Maybe you do. "A foul is a foul"

* If a player runs into a wall, is it a foul on the wall.
Carrington- foul or no foul? point #1- she did not have anything. She tried to shoot in two taller players faces with their arms up. Anyone can do that, flail around, and appear to get hit. That distorts the integrity of the game. She had nothing!!! She had zero, or negative, advantage over the defense. The defense was standing there. If the powers that be want desperation to be an advantage for the offense, then blow the whistle. Maybe that's fair to LeBron. I suggest next time that Baylor works the ball, finds an opening, and attempts to exploit the opening for a basket. That is basketball. Any M.S. player knows what it feels like to make the play Carrington made. I ask you, if that play happened on the playground and the offensive player called a foul, I'm sorry to be graphic, but the police would have to be summoned. What think you LeBron? You make that call on the playground to win a game? Bah!!!

 

[Monte]

You cannot go back to EVERY play of the game, and say, this was why a certain game was lost.
A few years ago, the NCAA ruled that "palming" the ball would be called when- ever it happened.....that rule is completely ignored.
WALKING is called most of the time in the women's game; in the men's game it is completely ignored(probably because it sets the ball handler up for a "terrific dunk."

Whatever: "It is what it is"......or "Just go with it."