South Carolina survives UCLA

[hoopsnloops32]

Well now I know someone who definitely IS NOT familiar with the rules: When is it NOT a violation of rules for a defender to undercut a bigger post player, to shove their hips and legs under the hips and into the legs of the taller post player established in their post position. The UCLA player even put her own body to the side, so she could use her leg strength better in trying to up-root Boston up and out of her post position.

When you are in post position, and a defender undercuts you from behind and tries to take your legs out from under you, what naturally happens? Your upper body falls backwards, causing your balance to fall backwards, and often then causes your arms to flail outward to regain your balance. But was the UCLA player called for the foul for undercutting Boston?

This was a common trick by the NBA's Dennis Rodman, to stick his legs under the rump and into the legs of a taller post player from behind, and in effect try to use his strength to lift UP and OUT to relocate said post player from his established position. It is against the rules and Rodman was often called for it - and many other times he wasn't.

Also defenders from the rear of a post player, when that post player is on offense, will often stick their arms and hands in front of that player to interfere with the passing lane of any pass into the post player. But those post players have the right to clear those areas - either by moving the defender's arms/hands out of the way, or by moving their own arms in front of the defender's arms. In the course of doing this, a post player will already be flailing her arms around from time to time.

And you're also supposed to give an offensive player their vertical space to make offensive moves to the basket when they have the ball. The shorter UCLA player who's head is about shoulder height to Boston, snug up into Boston so close that she could've kissed Boston on the cheek, when Boston was turning (making a post move) to the basket, and her elbow hit the girl in the face. Boston was called for the offensive foul - the UCLA girl seemed to have established her own defensive position - but so many people have tried to claim that Boston was throwing elbows, but all she did was turn with the ball in the air to make her post move.

But that happens all the time in the NBA to shorter players who try to defend post players, or try to block them out for rebounds: you place your face in the area of those guy's elbows, then expect to get elbowed in the face. Players like Cartwright, Rollins, Olajuwon, O'Neil always had strong post moves with elbows out - NOT swinging elbows, but gripping the ball tightly with both hands above their heads, and clamping down those hands hard with their arms, thus causing their elbows to stick up and outward. It's up to Boston to "feel" the defender on her body, and make post moves that separate her from the defender, so that any contact after that will be called on that defender.

She was called for a foul. And Boston didn't even have the ball when she elbowed her. Not sure you even watched the play before you wrote this novel.

 

[SCspur]

Interestingly, SC only outrebounded a heavily undersized UCLA team by 6 and were only +3 on the offensive boards as well. Total rebounds SC 48, UCLA 42
Offensive Rebounds SC 21, UCLA 17

UCLA was also called for 9 more fouls.

Actually they only had 33 rebounds to SC 44. When you actually count the rebounds versus what ESPN has for the total the numbers are far off.

 

[Bigboote]

Actually they only had 33 rebounds to SC 44. When you actually count the rebounds versus what ESPN has for the total the numbers are far off.

The totals include team (dead-ball) rebounds, which aren't credited to any player.

 

[oldhusky]

I must have missed the part in the rules that says contact by an elbow to the opposing players head is permissible when “it’s a basketball play.”

I remember how I laughed many many years ago, when John Havlicek from the Celtics was being interviewed after a game and he had a big black eye and the reporter asked him what happened? He said I fouled his elbow with my eye! Ha!

 

[oldhusky]

In many ways UCLA put up a good fight, but one thing they kept trying to do was driving to the hoop and trying to score over Boston or Cardosa. That was almost always a blocked shot waiting to happen. UCLA had roughly 25% of their two-point attempts blocked. They kept falling into the trap, SC would extend and overplay the defense luring them into a drive.

Trying to score at the hoop against either one of those is usually a losing proposition. The inside game is virtually taken away making beating them from the perimeter even more difficult. For the most part, however, SC's offense looked limited as well, exceptional pounding it inside, but struggling to score when they couldn't get it inside.

 

[sharris25]

In many ways UCLA put up a good fight, but one thing they kept trying to do was driving to the hoop and trying to score over Boston or Cardosa. That was almost always a blocked shot waiting to happen. UCLA had roughly 25% of their two-point attempts blocked. They kept falling into the trap, SC would extend and overplay the defense luring them into a drive.

Trying to score at the hoop against either one of those is usually a losing proposition. The inside game is virtually taken away making beating them from the perimeter even more difficult. For the most part, however, SC's offense looked limited as well, exceptional pounding it inside, but struggling to score when they couldn't get it inside.

South Carolina look out of sync as they dealt with the switching box and one. Last year and the year before they had these issues early in the season with Henderson playing, for whom everyone is trying to be their cure all for why their team will beat SC. As with years past, South Carolina normally figures it out and thus, if you are hoping for the events of this game to translate against your team, it would be an unwise perception. South Carolina has had some good shooting games thus far this year, and some clunkers. Note, their offensive numbers this year are ahead of last year's numbers already so go ahead and take your best shots. They will be ready as they move throughout the season imo

 

[#1florida]

Well now I know someone who definitely IS NOT familiar with the rules: When is it NOT a violation of rules for a defender to undercut a bigger post player, to shove their hips and legs under the hips and into the legs of the taller post player established in their post position. The UCLA player even put her own body to the side, so she could use her leg strength better in trying to up-root Boston up and out of her post position.

When you are in post position, and a defender undercuts you from behind and tries to take your legs out from under you, what naturally happens? Your upper body falls backwards, causing your balance to fall backwards, and often then causes your arms to flail outward to regain your balance. But was the UCLA player called for the foul for undercutting Boston?

This was a common trick by the NBA's Dennis Rodman, to stick his legs under the rump and into the legs of a taller post player from behind, and in effect try to use his strength to lift UP and OUT to relocate said post player from his established position. It is against the rules and Rodman was often called for it - and many other times he wasn't.

Also defenders from the rear of a post player, when that post player is on offense, will often stick their arms and hands in front of that player to interfere with the passing lane of any pass into the post player. But those post players have the right to clear those areas - either by moving the defender's arms/hands out of the way, or by moving their own arms in front of the defender's arms. In the course of doing this, a post player will already be flailing her arms around from time to time.

And you're also supposed to give an offensive player their vertical space to make offensive moves to the basket when they have the ball. The shorter UCLA player who's head is about shoulder height to Boston, snug up into Boston so close that she could've kissed Boston on the cheek, when Boston was turning (making a post move) to the basket, and her elbow hit the girl in the face. Boston was called for the offensive foul - the UCLA girl seemed to have established her own defensive position - but so many people have tried to claim that Boston was throwing elbows, but all she did was turn with the ball in the air to make her post move.

But that happens all the time in the NBA to shorter players who try to defend post players, or try to block them out for rebounds: you place your face in the area of those guy's elbows, then expect to get elbowed in the face. Players like Cartwright, Rollins, Olajuwon, O'Neil always had strong post moves with elbows out - NOT swinging elbows, but gripping the ball tightly with both hands above their heads, and clamping down those hands hard with their arms, thus causing their elbows to stick up and outward. It's up to Boston to "feel" the defender on her body, and make post moves that separate her from the defender, so that any contact after that will be called on that defender.

what a surprise, that you would have this view point.

 

[SCGamecock]

We will see come February if UConn can exploit SC weak guards.

Like they were supposed to last year.

 

[ConwayGmck]

She was called for a foul. And Boston didn't even have the ball when she elbowed her. Not sure you even watched the play before you wrote this novel.

An offensive player does NOT need to "have the ball" for a defensive player to undercut them to try to root them out of their preferred post position on the floor - BEFORE they get said ball in their hands. It's STILL a defensive foul per the rules. Had Boston had the ball in her hands when she was undercut, it's very likely that she wouldn't have flailed her arm which hit the UCLA player, but then she'd likely have fallen to the floor losing her balance. I watched the play and the replay of the play many times.

I am confused as to the point of your comments I quoted above. I ALSO referenced a second time that Boston hit a UCLA player with her elbow, in the 1st half. Boston definitely HAD THE BALL in her hands and was trying a post move to the basket. My comments referenced two separate instances, not just one. What are you referrencing about?

 

[hoopsnloops32]

An offensive player does NOT need to "have the ball" for a defensive player to undercut them to try to root them out of their preferred post position on the floor - BEFORE they get said ball in their hands. It's STILL a defensive foul per the rules. Had Boston had the ball in her hands when she was undercut, it's very likely that she wouldn't have flailed her arm which hit the UCLA player, but then she'd likely have fallen to the floor losing her balance. I watched the play and the replay of the play many times.

I am confused as to the point of your comments I quoted above. I ALSO referenced a second time that Boston hit a UCLA player with her elbow, in the 1st half. Boston definitely HAD THE BALL in her hands and was trying a post move to the basket. My comments referenced two separate instances, not just one. What are you referrencing about?

The point is she she was undercut after she got the ball, they called a foul, but she elbowed her illegally before she had the ball and it was a good technical call.

 

[npignatjr]

The point is she she was undercut after she got the ball, they called a foul, but she elbowed her illegally before she had the ball and it was a good technical call.

The "missed" elbow to the face came first. How the officials missed an elbow up high and called the other foul until after the elbow it was brought to their attention.

 

[cancontent]

The "missed" elbow to the face came first. How the officials missed an elbow up high and called the other foul until after the elbow it was brought to their attention.

Officials miss things. It's easy for us to say this when we have replays and different camera angles than they do on the court while the game is live. I'm not trying to excuse them, however they did go to the video, reviewed it and made the correct call.

It's no different than a call that happened during the WNBA play-offs where A'ja Wilson and Gabby Williams both ended up getting called on a drive where Williams scored while Wilson tried to defend her. If memory serves correct, Wilson was initially called for the blocking foul, however the refs reviewed the play because Wilson had been hit in the head. The replays clearly showed Williams tried to clear space while going to the basket and her arm hit Wilson in the head. Without the review, Wilson would have the only played called for the foul when it was clear that Williams had also committed one

 

[npignatjr]

Officials miss things. It's easy for us to say this when we have replays and different camera angles than they do on the court while the game is live. I'm not trying to excuse them, however they did go to the video, reviewed it and made the correct call.

It's no different than a call that happened during the WNBA play-offs where A'ja Wilson and Gabby Williams both ended up getting called on a drive where Williams scored while Wilson tried to defend her. If memory serves correct, Wilson was initially called for the blocking foul, however the refs reviewed the play because Wilson had been hit in the head. The replays clearly showed Williams tried to clear space while going to the basket and her arm hit Wilson in the head. Without the review, Wilson would have the only played called for the foul when it was clear that Williams had also committed one

You would think the obvious elbow to the head thru above the shoulder would be easier to see than contact down low looking through bodies. Especially since contact on the head/face is considered dangerous and fouls called for that is a point of emphasis

 

[triaddukefan]

I got a feeling this particular thread will go until SC meets UCLA again... NEXT season in LA

 

[cancontent]

You would think the obvious elbow to the head thru above the shoulder would be easier to see than contact down low looking through bodies. Especially since contact on the head/face is considered dangerous and fouls called for that is a point of emphasis

No argument there, but you have to consider the positions of the referees on the court and what they're watching out for at the same time. It's easier said than done from what I've learned through friends who are FIBA certified referees.

 

[npignatjr]

No argument there, but you have to consider the positions of the referees on the court and what they're watching out for at the same time. It's easier said than done from what I've learned through friends who are FIBA certified referees.

Does the FIBA the international body have the same emphasis on cracking down of throwing elbows as the NCAA?

 

[cancontent]

Does the FIBA the international body have the same emphasis on cracking down of throwing elbows as the NCAA?

Not sure if there's an emphasis as you're phrasing it, but it's something they have to call. During certain FIBA events, they also have the ability to review and make a call after the fact like they do during NCAA games.

 

[GCKSFN4L]

I don't know why we're still on this. Boston was fighting for position which is quite normal in the post. She jumped slightly trying to get a better position for the incoming pass and unfortunately during the jump her defender's head just happened to be in the crossfire. Boston still got called for the intentional foul so I don't get what the fuss is about.

That was a basketball play with an unfortunate outcome. Some act as if she intentionally winded up her arm to do this with a malicious intent. She's a big strong body and like many physical bigs (Griner, McCowan) this happens sometimes even though smaller players often do the same but because of their size it's less scrutinized.

It happened she got called for the foul and UCLA shot a free throw and got the ball back. Please let's move on from this.

 

[jake0414]

I got a feeling this particular thread will go until SC meets UCLA again... NEXT season in LA

They don’t play next year. Dawn asked Cori if they could push their game in LA to 2024/25 so the Gamecocks can combine the travel to the west coast with a game at Stanford. Cori said okay.

 

[ThatCG1801]

Lord have mercy....bless it. Ppl have exhausted things to gripe about us for so now they've moved on to Dawn looking angry on the sideline. LOL.

 

[Bone Dog]

Interesting game -- I just had a chance to watch it. SC looked eminently beatable in the first 3 quarters, which is surprising given the immense size discrepancy between the teams. In the 1st quarter, when Boston was off the floor SC couldn't score, which was a common problem last year as well. But they pulled away in the 4th, and their better conditioning was clear. Osborne in particular looked exhausted.

Rice is clearly a significant talent, but she made a number of costly mistakes in the second half. Not just foolish fouls, but also often wasting the shot clock dribbling and faking at the top of the key when Osborne was open. She'll be a great pg one day, but she's not there yet. As a result, several possessions in a row UCLA was stuck with last second desperation heaves from way too deep.

Even tired, UCLA was able to manufacture a few trips to the free throw line, which made the final score look closer than it was. Osborne in particular knows how to work the final minute.

Cardozo looked really good for most of her minutes -- I was impressed.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

This game was almost a week ago and you're still arguing about one play.

Is the point supposed to be that Boston is a heinous player who needs to be run out of the sport? Who gives a dang about this otherwise. My word.

 

[willtalk]

Well now I know someone who definitely IS NOT familiar with the rules: When is it NOT a violation of rules for a defender to undercut a bigger post player, to shove their hips and legs under the hips and into the legs of the taller post player established in their post position. The UCLA player even put her own body to the side, so she could use her leg strength better in trying to up-root Boston up and out of her post position.

When you are in post position, and a defender undercuts you from behind and tries to take your legs out from under you, what naturally happens? Your upper body falls backwards, causing your balance to fall backwards, and often then causes your arms to flail outward to regain your balance. But was the UCLA player called for the foul for undercutting Boston?

This was a common trick by the NBA's Dennis Rodman, to stick his legs under the rump and into the legs of a taller post player from behind, and in effect try to use his strength to lift UP and OUT to relocate said post player from his established position. It is against the rules and Rodman was often called for it - and many other times he wasn't.

Also defenders from the rear of a post player, when that post player is on offense, will often stick their arms and hands in front of that player to interfere with the passing lane of any pass into the post player. But those post players have the right to clear those areas - either by moving the defender's arms/hands out of the way, or by moving their own arms in front of the defender's arms. In the course of doing this, a post player will already be flailing her arms around from time to time.

And you're also supposed to give an offensive player their vertical space to make offensive moves to the basket when they have the ball. The shorter UCLA player who's head is about shoulder height to Boston, snug up into Boston so close that she could've kissed Boston on the cheek, when Boston was turning (making a post move) to the basket, and her elbow hit the girl in the face. Boston was called for the offensive foul - the UCLA girl seemed to have established her own defensive position - but so many people have tried to claim that Boston was throwing elbows, but all she did was turn with the ball in the air to make her post move.

But that happens all the time in the NBA to shorter players who try to defend post players, or try to block them out for rebounds: you place your face in the area of those guy's elbows, then expect to get elbowed in the face. Players like Cartwright, Rollins, Olajuwon, O'Neil always had strong post moves with elbows out - NOT swinging elbows, but gripping the ball tightly with both hands above their heads, and clamping down those hands hard with their arms, thus causing their elbows to stick up and outward. It's up to Boston to "feel" the defender on her body, and make post moves that separate her from the defender, so that any contact after that will be called on that defender.

Your rationalizations are biased as hell and I will point out two obvious places. Don't attempt to use a long envolved detailed post to hide the obvious.

I'll start with the most obvious of your statements. In your fifth paragraph you state that the defender is supposed to give the offensive player with the ball room to make a move to the basket. To begin with Boston does not even get the ball until Bosten has hit Bessor and she is doubled over holding her head. It is because Bessor has been taken out that Bosten was even open to take the ball for an uncontested shot. Your statement about allowing an offensive player with the ball a lane to make a move does not apply if the offensive player move is the direction of a defenders established position. Thats why offensive fouls are called. That aside the entire physical issue between Bessor and Bosten happens with Bosten not having the ball.

In respect to you take on a defender not being allowed to put their legs where it serves their best interests is also wrong. They are not allowed to put their legs where it impedes the offensive player in their ability to make a lateral movement. The defender is allowed to maintain their established position by pushing back on the offensive player who tries to move them from their established postition. Large offensive posts often use their body weight and strength to move defenders off their postitions. Bessor was just attempting to hold her original positions while Bosten was trying to move her to get closer to the basket. They were fighting for position with Bosten attempting to move it closer to the basket. A smaller player will lower their center of gravity to get more leverage and that forces the offensive player to go over the top. The offensive player is going over the top because of their actions not the defender who is not undercutting as long as they hold their original position. It all depends on the original starting point.

The entire dynamic and rules that apply changes once the offensive player has the ball. However, that was not the case here. Bosten did not even get the ball until Bessor was completely out of he play holding her head feet away from Boston. I am not aware if the basket counted or if she was shooting an and one or a two shot shooting foul. The elbo to the face is is what allowed her to get the ball and have an open look. So unless they were in the penalty any shot should not have counted period. Being that any penalty either on Boston or Bessor was long before the she had the ball let alone in a shooting motion. The refs screwed this up on multiple levels. It would be like pushing someone down, then getting the ball and having the shot count.

 

[sivad40]

This game was almost a week ago and you're still arguing about one play.

Is the point supposed to be that Boston is a heinous player who needs to be run out of the sport? Who gives a dang about this otherwise. My word.

South Carolina has played another game since then and this topic is still going on.

 

[Bone Dog]

Sorry, but what else is there to talk about so far this season with SC? They've played two serious games and smashed a bunch of cream puffs.

 

[shiverz45]

Sorry, but what else is there to talk about so far this season with SC? They've played two serious games and smashed a bunch of cream puffs.

Maryland, Stanford, and UCLA

 

[Bone Dog]

Maryland, Stanford, and UCLA

I stand corrected: 3 games.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Sorry, but what else is there to talk about so far this season with SC? They've played two serious games and smashed a bunch of cream puffs.

The only thing to talk about South Carolina this year is a hyper technical discussion about whether a single play should have been called a simple foul or not?

 

[Bone Dog]

The only thing to talk about South Carolina this year is a hyper technical discussion about whether a single play should have been called a simple foul or not?

Hahaha. Surely not. But the only games really worth discussing in any detail are the big ones, and the UCLA game seems rather more informative even than the Stanford game.