Rich: Officiating a Concern for Auriemma

[Icebear]

I find Geno's comments a bit ingenious. The UConn players rarely get called for fouls. IMO, that doesn't mean they didn't commit the foul, it just means they didn't get called for the foul. For example, Steph Dolson is guilty of many moving screens that don't get called. I don't think ND gets fouls called against the opposing players unfairly anymore than UConn does. IMO, both teams get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the officials calling the game. Most, if not all, other teams have a legitimate gripe about the calls from the officials. if they are playing UConn or ND.

Stef does not commit near as many moving screens any more. It has been something the coaching staff has worked hard on with her and more importantly the cutters. Often Stef's fouls were the result of the cutter not coming close enough to rub off the defender and Stef moving to close the gap. Plus not every situation is a moving screen. If Stef is rolling to the hoop and someone runs into her it is not a moving screen because she is entitled to cut to the hoop. In that case the other player can be called for obstruction which has occurred more this year.

 

[UcMiami]

I will also say that I think refs do a very inconsistent job with moving screens and fouls on players who have been run into screens - they call the hip check sometimes as a screener tries to close off a window, and don't at other times frequently resulting in a foul on the defender as they are propelled into the dribbler by a well timed hip check.

 

[Artifact]

Ever heard of the "Fighting Floppers". Remember Muffet, one of the 10 commandments, 'Thou shall not steal points' !

 

[Icebear]

No charge should ever be called from behind the defender unless there is clear solid physical contact. Just because a player goes down does not mean there was a charge. From behind you often cannot tell if there was any real contact or just the compressed air pushed the defender over.

 

[PacoSwede]

Since we're focused on officiating, maybe someone can explain:

When an offensive player is driving to the hoop, why is a defender called for a foul when the driver initiates contact by making a lateral move into the defender -- even, literally and sometimes blatantly, jumping into the defender? That to me is a charge, but it is rarely called. Instead the defender often is whistled. (One fault I see in Bria is that when going to the hole she tends to avoid contact -- probably an instinct to put the ball through the hoop at all costs -- when the wiser play, considering how the game is usually called, would be to move into the defender(s) and not worry about making the shot.)

It seems to me the player who initiates the contact in these situations should be assessed a foul, but the call almost inevitably goes in favor of the offensive player. I don't understand this. Am I just ignorant of the rulebook?

I understand it's often not obvious who initiates the contact. Why don't the officials then simply not insert themselves into the game? If it isn't clear, don't blow the whistle! Play on.

OTOH, if the offensive player clearly initiates the contact, let's call that a charge to discourage the proliferation of this jumping-into-the-defender scam (which is kind of the opposite of the flop tactic). If the defender initiates the contact, then of course call that foul -- and it usually is.

Another call that confuses me: There is a loose ball, and opposing players seek it. There is contact in the process, not surprisingly. The officials seem compelled to call a foul on one of the players, even though both are entitled to capture the ball. Why? I understand that if one player intentionally displaces the opponent she deserves to be assessed a foul. But if both players are simply going for the ball and in the process collide, why is one player necessarily at fault and the other the victim? This can have a major effect on the game. Officials should just let 'em play when the players are simply going for the ball and there is incidental contact -- even when one of them suffers a bad hit. The incidental-intentional aspect of the contact should be the major factor. Unless it's clearly intentional, why make a call?

 

[JoePgh]

If Stef is rolling to the hoop and someone runs into her it is not a moving screen because she is entitled to cut to the hoop. In that case the other player can be called for obstruction which has occurred more this year.

Not necessarily. If the defensive player establishes position with two feet planted, in the path that Stef is trying to take to the basket, and Stef moves into her, that is a charge just as it would be if Stef had the ball. The same block/charge rules apply in that situation as in a situation where the offensive player is driving with the ball towards the hoop.

To reply to another post in this thread, I think it is completely wrong for officials to take into account the "game situation" (e.g., whether the score is close or whether it is a "turning point") when deciding whether or not to call a foul. A foul is a foul, whether the score is 4-2 in Minute 2 or 80-79 in Minute 40. The officials should be blind to that -- it is an extraneous factor. When officials try to take that into account, they end up doing things like modifying calls to avoid giving a player her 5th foul, as I believe occurred with Sims at the end of the Baylor-ND game. That in itself changes the game in a way that is unwarranted.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

PacoSwede- - This is another of the drives me nuts calls! Along with moving screens! It should be simple, even for the incompetent refs! IMHO it is a charge whenever the offensive player lowers their shoulder driving to the basket, they are initiating contact! It is a block if the defensive player is inside the semi-circle or their feet are moving to get in front of the offensive player! Granted it is tough to see if the feet are moving while watching for the lowering of the shoulder but that's why they have 3 refs and they're making $600 to $800 a game in season and a $1000 a game in NCAA's!
The other nutso call is around the mid-court line when a pass is made and the catching offensive player turns right into the defensive player with no room to move and is called for the travel! You would think the refs have to allow the offensive player to catch and turn but that isn't how it's called! Like when a player jumps up to catch a pass but must be given a place to land!
Notre Dame has perfected (with the help of the incompetent refs) the shoulder leads the way and the moving into the way of the ball handler! The "ND Tweeting-Diva" was made a star by the refs, for whatever reason, allowing her to benefit from obvious fouls called the other way! She finished the last WNBA season coming off the bench avg. 12 minutes a game with almost as many turnovers as assists! She is being shown to be the mediocre player she truly is!
The WNBA refs, if possible, are more incompetent than their college buddies!
There is no reason for many of the calls just the refs misunderstanding or not knowing the rules!
I've stated many times before 2 things need to change to get better refereeing:
1. The supervisor of officials for each conference cannot be a person who has reffed in that conference with their buddies! All supervisors should be retired NBA refs with NO TIES to that group of refs!
2. The refs are now allowed to ref 5 to 6 games a week all across the country! That has to take a toll on each ref especially toward the end of the season when the refs should be at their sharpest!

 

[schmendrick]

I find Geno's comments a bit ingenious.

Ingenious comments; I agree. It would be disingenuous of me not to side with your first sentence.

 

[chrissaran]

Maybe ScarlettB didn't read Rich's article on the number of fouls called against the opponents of the Final Four teams: Notre Dame 700, Stanford 661, Maryland 634 and UConn 600. One hundred more fouls for ND's opponents than UConn's and in two less games.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Excellent point on the moving screens AFTER contact, as part of the pick and roll. I challenge ScarlettB to observe carefully (Lobo as well, for that matter) as to whether Dolson moves into or after the contact rather than regurgitate conventional wisdom. Technically it is still at times a moving screen, but not the sort that provides an advantage as when moving into contact.

If the defender she screened is still trying to get around the screen to guard the ball-handler, then it is likely still a foul. It doesn't really matter whether or not she moves before or after the original contact. You can't screen someone and then move to prevent them from continuing to guard their man.

 

[ctdad]

Maybe ScarlettB didn't read Rich's article on the number of fouls called against the opponents of the Final Four teams: Notre Dame 700, Stanford 661, Maryland 634 and UConn 600. One hundred more fouls for ND's opponents than UConn's and in two less games.

Left out of the analysis is that ND has been called for 140 more fouls than UConn (599 vs. 459) in 2 less games (numbers through yesterday). Likewise the differentials are interesting, ND has been called for 123 less fouls than it's opppnents, UConn 157 less. It would be interesting to know what the numbers were last year, when they were facing many more of the same opponents.

 

[asuwish]

I find Geno's comments a bit ingenious. The UConn players rarely get called for fouls. IMO, that doesn't mean they didn't commit the foul, it just means they didn't get called for the foul. For example, Steph Dolson is guilty of many moving screens that don't get called. I don't think ND gets fouls called against the opposing players unfairly anymore than UConn does. IMO, both teams get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the officials calling the game. Most, if not all, other teams have a legitimate gripe about the calls from the officials. if they are playing UConn or ND.

I think Geno's gripe is that by calling a foul every time 2 players make contact a foul the game has no flow. People who watch mens bball see a physical sport. The woman need to show they too can play the same way, and not as some delicate flower that needs to be protected. Fans of the womans game know this is not true.
Because of the 2 undefeated teams this is a chance for the women's game to get exposed to the sports fans who normally do not pay attention to WCBB. People will watch. I think Geno and most every fan of the sport hopes this is the type of well played game that gets others to see how far women have come. The refs should call aggressive fouls, but need to let the talent these kids have show through.

 

[UConnCat]

Left out of the analysis is that ND has been called for 140 more fouls than UConn (599 vs. 459) in 2 less games (numbers through yesterday). Likewise the differentials are interesting, ND has been called for 123 less fouls than it's opppnents, UConn 157 less. It would be interesting to know what the numbers were last year, when they were facing many more of the same opponents.

UConn as a team commits very few fouls, typically fewer than ND except that's not always true when they play each other. The real statistical disparity has been free throws attempted. Last year and so far this year ND has attempted 828 and 819 free throws, respectively. UConn attempted 590 last year and 633 so far this year. A big part of the difference is style of play: ND looks for contact and UConn doesn't typically play that way.

 

[ctdad]

UConn as a team commits very few fouls, typically fewer than ND except that's not always true when they play each other. The real statistical disparity has been free throws attempted. Last year and so far this year ND has attempted 828 and 819 free throws, respectively. UConn attempted 590 last year and 633 so far this year. A big part of the difference is style of play: ND looks for contact and UConn doesn't typically play that way.

Different styles explain it completely; one look at the 3-point attempts bears that out. UConn has attempted 786 this year and tried 859 last season. ND is at 454 this year and 470 last year. Overall FG attempts were UConn 2414 this year and 2460 last year, ND is at 2361 this season and 2400 last year). Stand to reason that you don't get fouled as much on 3 point attempts.

I'm wondering if the increase in UConn fouls when they play each other is because ND is one of the few teams willing to at the rim against UConn.

 

[UConnCat]

Different styles explain it completely; one look at the 3-point attempts bears that out. UConn has attempted 786 this year and tried 859 last season. ND is at 454 this year and 470 last year. Overall FG attempts were UConn 2414 this year and 2460 last year, ND is at 2361 this season and 2400 last year). Stand to reason that you don't get fouled as much on 3 point attempts.

Very true. I think the gripe of some fans of ND's opponents are that its guards throw themselves in to defenders (sometimes with exaggerated motions) looking for contact and fouls. ND certainly has had the big guards to employ that strategy and it's worked.

 

[UcMiami]

UconnCat - I think the discrepancy in foul shots even when taken against a full season and not a single game was clearly reflected in the Uconn/Stanford game - both teams fouled very little with the number 16/10 and Stanford only entered the bonus near the end of the second half so Uconn only got I believe three free-throws based on 1 and 1 fouls - the rest of the attempts discrepancy which was 24 to 10 was a direct result of how and when the fouls were committed. 4 of Uconns fouls were floor fouls on rebounds or 'freedom of movement' two were 'and ones' and only four were 2 shot shooting fouls. Stanford on the other hand committed I believe 9 2 shot shooting fouls on drives or inside moves, 3 and ones, and 4 floor fouls. The difference in the way Uconn was trying to score vs. Stanford was the main reason for the difference in foul shots.
ND drives hard to the basket as a major component of their offense and so when the get fouled it is more often in the act of shooting - every player is taught 'do not foul a jump shooter', they don't all comply but most of them try.

On the question of the lowered shoulder/extended arm push off - they do tend to call those charges, but they don't always get it right.

As for last night - Bria drove and jumped back into a defender twice at the rim - that is almost always called on the defender and it is one foul that bothers me a bit. The rule is supposed to be verticality and often they get called regardless. Even if a defender leaps, if they remain vertical, it should not be a foul on them.

 

[snowkot]

Officiating will undeniably play a massive role in the championship game.

If it's called the way it was in ND-Baylor, UConn will have a very difficult time winning.

If there are a fair amount of whistles, and the players are allowed to play, I reckon Notre Dame will have a very difficult time winning.

There's no getting around it because the "enhanced reaction" (trademark pending) (joking) on defense is an important part of Notre Dame's game plan - it's really that simple. Opposing coaches must game plan for it, referees own the key to it.

Clarification of "enhanced reaction:" Not just sliding under a driving player and "flopping" backwards.

At least as significant - perhaps more so in this game - is jostling for position in the post, where the offensive or defensive player suddenly jerks around like a hooked fish, or fighting through screens, where the screener or the defensive player overreacts dramatically - both physically and verbally.

Unfortunate, because as previously offered, to me, incorporating the ability to con an incompetent referee as a key cog in one's game plan is just not on - especially at the college level, where (unlike the men) the women who participate in the sport truly are "student-athletes."

Funny, as we watched the game last night, I found myself saying, "That's an offensive foul against Notre Dame." "That's an offensive foul against Notre Dame." "Thats..."

 

[Icebear]

I once played for a coach whose theory for dealing with floppers in a CYO league was to make sure you landed on the flopper as you came down. Never liked the idea but it did tend to stop flopping quite quickly.