Shout out to the refs in the UConn-DePaul game

[OldAlum]

I may be in the minority here, but I would have liked the game to have been called more tightly. One of the best things about WCBB to me is the freedom of movement and passing and running. I am not a fan of a "physical" game. I dont enjoy a game dominated by pushing and bumping in the post. Likely why I like WCBB over the WNBA.

I thought the refs did a good job calling the game evenly. For the most part they were consistent and that is what you need. A few years ago hand checks were a point of emphasis and it drove me crazy that there was mayhem in the post as players ran into each other with no calls, but the whistle blew when a guard put a hand on another guard! Glad that seems to have stopped.

I also dont like when people say the refs should "let them play!". Ummm, it is basketball, not rugby! I much prefer a game that restricts the contact. Again, as long as the refs are consistent, the coaches and players can adjust.

 

[housekeys]

LMAO........... cause our team doesn't do any of this!

Of course we do, and it should be called. In general, however, the less talented you are, the more physical you need to be. It is this way in most sports.

 

[Bone Dog]

Here‘s another one: the incessant horizontal dive under the basket after a layup attempt. There are players that do that every time. It’s BS. Not necessary. I played 4 years 24/7/365, can’t remember ever diving after a layup.

I'm totally with you on this one, and I too played for decades on the outdoor courts in my neighborhood and it would never have occurred to anyone to dive after a layup. Talk about road rash. Also not a lot of taking charges, fake or otherwise on those courts.

 

[housekeys]

As I read these posts, it is clear that the issue of "letting them play" vs "calling the game tightly" is causing some confusion. I think both opinions are correct, because posters are focusing on different aspects of the game; the "physicality" of the game and the "rules of the game". The rules are clear. Physicality is not.

IMHO the calls must be tight to reduce physicality. The ref should err on the side of calling fouls, rather than "letting them play." It allows for a more fluid game. IMHO the rules (e.g. a 3 second call +/- 1 second, dragging a pivot foot +/- inch ) can err on the side of no call (i.e. let them play). Obviously applied equally to both teams.

In general, it is inconsistency that makes poor officiating. For example, two teams A, B plan to be physical. Team A being physical results in team B shooting fouls. Team B playing physical results in team A turning the ball over and missing usually made shots. Team B is very fortunate, or the officiating is very bad.

Finally, what makes it even worse is, there are 3 officials. You only need 1 bad apple. That's the way it is however, so we live with that.

 

[hoophuskee]

I may be in the minority here, but I would have liked the game to have been called more tightly. One of the best things about WCBB to me is the freedom of movement and passing and running. I am not a fan of a "physical" game. I dont enjoy a game dominated by pushing and bumping in the post. Likely why I like WCBB over the WNBA.

I thought the refs did a good job calling the game evenly. For the most part they were consistent and that is what you need. A few years ago hand checks were a point of emphasis and it drove me crazy that there was mayhem in the post as players ran into each other with no calls, but the whistle blew when a guard put a hand on another guard! Glad that seems to have stopped.

I also dont like when people say the refs should "let them play!". Ummm, it is basketball, not rugby! I much prefer a game that restricts the contact. Again, as long as the refs are consistent, the coaches and players can adjust.

I hate mudwrestling games. I believe you do too. For me, I want to see scoring. But for this game didn't UCONN score? And there wasn't that many stoppages, was there?

Also, while you and I like to watch free movement better, what about the player that is super athletic and strong but doesn't have as many skills? How are they ever going to compete using their strengths vs a player more fundamentally skilled?

When I was playing back when the game was 1st invented -- I would have loved it if the more physical players didn’t bang in to me in order to get better low position on a switch. The lower position they get, the more successful they will be. There has to be banging. That's why on the other thread I was surprised how there were posts speaking negatively of Murrow's "banging." On the inside many players "bang." Last year 3 coaches in S16, E8 and Final Four spoke of how physical/effective UCONN's bigs were. They would have had to have "banged."

Murrow's strength and quickness on the inside for someone her size is a beautiful thing to watch. The beauty of the battle between her and Edwards is that Murrow needs "position" on the inside to be effective. And for rebounds, especially Offensive Rebounds she is forced to use her combination of strength and quickness vs taller players. It's a beautiful thing to watch. So is Edwards!

Edwards physicality makes her an exciting watch when she can just outmuscle someone inside for scoring and rebounds. If “muscle” wasn’t part of the game, then the game would be something closer to 4-5 guards/small forwards in which the bigs can’t use their physicality. That is just too much finesse.

 

[MD#12Fan]

I'm totally with you on this one, and I too played for decades on the outdoor courts in my neighborhood and it would never have occurred to anyone to dive after a layup. Talk about road rash. Also not a lot of taking charges, fake or otherwise on those courts.

Or “concrete“ indoor gyms. Some small catholic schools around D.C. Ouch

 

[Amston Joe]

This says conference can experiment with the rule for women. I thought it had been finalized

Panel approves awarding a technical foul for flopping in men’s basketball - NCAA.org

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved allowing men's basketball officials to assess Class B technical fouls to players who fake being fouled, beginning

www.ncaa.org

I think that the women can only experiment with the 2nd of the 3 rule changes listed for the men in this article, the Technology Rule. Unless the women's committee addressed it elsewhere.

"NCAA women's basketball teams can also experiment with this technology rule during conference games for the upcoming season if the conference submits a waiver request."

 

[UcMiami]

I got to say, I am not in favor of giving refs another area to interpret unless it is reserve for truly over the top acting jobs that happen maybe 20 times a year across all games. They have enough trouble deciding offensive/defense foul, now they are going to adjudicate embellishments and assign technicals? Scary thought!

 

[BBallF]

"I have been posting here for years that there is an embedded sexism in the officiating in womens' basketball that stems from a philosophy that goes something like this "They are only girls. Let them play. They can't hurt each other.""

In a world where it seems like everyone is accused of being something offensive to someone, now we learn that the refs are sexist.

That's funny however Geno himself said that the DePaul game was correctly officiated because they called the game like a mens' basketball game not a girls basketball game. Not women, "girls". What do you think he meant other than the fact that there are two methodologies or standards? If the methodologies or standards are not exactly equal, then one is higher or better than the other which means there is an inherent inequity between the sexes. Guess which one is higher or better according to Geno? Then guess what the reason is. My theory is based on conversations with referees in youth and high school when I was coaching who officiated both sexes. It may not be completely accurate as many other theories but the disparity between the refereeing is glaring in my view and apparently to Geno too. Not every attempt to highlight unfairness or unequal treatment is simply some crazy lunatic finding a hidden conspiracy.

 

[90BSEE]

I have been posting here for years that there is an embedded sexism in the officiating in womens' basketball

You are right. But not for the reasons you stated

 

[BBallF]

You are right. But not for the reasons you stated

What do you think the reasons are? I'm curious. This is a very important topic.

 

[Bone Dog]

IMO it is fair and part of the game to inhibit cutters as a defender by “striking“ them with your arm tucked assuming you get to the space first. The defender has a right to take up that space.

I’m with you on almost everything in your fine post — oh, heck, pretty much everything. But I have a tiny caveat. What you describe as “getting to the space first” is the essence of good D, the gold standard. But bumping cutters is more analogous to a moving screen than to taking a charge. It’s a subtle hip-check or a little shove in passing. The point of it isn’t to hold a position but merely to wear down an opponent.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Could we get the same refs tonight? I'm thinking it'll be the usual clowns that we see in big games that have a lot of eyeballs on them.

 

[MD#12Fan]

I’m with you on almost everything in your fine post — oh, heck, pretty much everything. But I have a tiny caveat. What you describe as “getting to the space first” is the essence of good D, the gold standard. But bumping cutters is more analogous to a moving screen than to taking a charge. It’s a subtle hip-check or a little shove in passing. The point of it isn’t to hold a position but merely to wear down an opponent.

I’m with you on almost everything in your fine post — oh, heck, pretty much everything. But I have a tiny caveat. What you describe as “getting to the space first” is the essence of good D, the gold standard. But bumping cutters is more analogous to a moving screen than to taking a charge. It’s a subtle hip-check or a little shove in passing. The point of it isn’t to hold a position but merely to wear down an opponent.

Thanks for the response. You're right, very nuanced. I'm thinking back to my playing days. I think contact between players, cutter and defender trying to take it away, is unavoidable. Maybe this, in my analysis, would just be contact within the rules. Either player attempts to secure an unfair advantage in the situation is called for a foul. Offensive player just blasts through the contact, after defensive player has established position. Defensive player hits offensive player, rather than just impeding, or obviously grabs or reaches in order to divert offensive player.
Here's one: Giannis posts up low and literally bangs the defensive player repeatedly, and vice versa. I don't see that as basketball.

 

[Cornell Lt]

I'd be shocked of Kantner is not one of the officials

 

[90BSEE]

What do you think the reasons are? I'm curious. This is a very important topic.

It manifests in how coaches are treated more than how players are treated.

 

[90BSEE]

I’m with you on almost everything in your fine post — oh, heck, pretty much everything. But I have a tiny caveat. What you describe as “getting to the space first” is the essence of good D, the gold standard. But bumping cutters is more analogous to a moving screen than to taking a charge. It’s a subtle hip-check or a little shove in passing. The point of it isn’t to hold a position but merely to wear down an opponent.

Correct. And when this is done, on ball, it throws a player off balance and often results in a turnover. But, even off ball, it makes it impossible for a player to get open and get to open space.

I will say this. This team is better at playing through contact than we have seen in many years. They also have a nice mid-range game. It is particularly true of Edwards and Griffin But Nika has gotten better at it too.