Standford is suppose to be the smart kids | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Standford is suppose to be the smart kids

ConwayGmck said:
OK, so I thought this board was a board of intelligent WBB fans. As a non-Connecticut WBB fan, I get to bring some enlightenment.
Expand ...
Office Space No GIF
 
hookshot said:
Replay showed no clear evidence of a push, only a lean, and Bielibi bit on the lean. maybe a light push on the back, that's all it takes, but you don't get a clear view of such
Expand ...
So you are acknowledging that there was contact???
 
Centerstream said:
So you are acknowledging that there was contact???
Expand ...

Are you suggesting that ANY contact between players during the free throw - as long as they stay standing in their spaces and do not step into the lane - is a rule violation?
 
.-.
RSHERMVIKES said:
Why are so many of you upset or surprised by the ref's calls?
The referees in WCBB and WNBA have been terrible for as long as I can remember and no one in the NCAA or League offices does anything about it!
There is a rating system by coaches and 99% of the time it is ignored.
Most supervisors of each conference are retired ref's who won't punish their friends!
Most coaches realize if they complain too much the upcoming games refs will pay back that coach! So they grin & bear it!
Expand ...
I disagree. In almost every big SC game, at some point Dawn will be on the sidelines after a call against SC and will be "talking" to a ref. The ref stands there listening. Things tend to change after that. Or as someone stated in the chatroom, Dawn will have a "h" fit about a call and again, things seem to change.
 
Blue Ghost said:
Refs missed a couple calls against SC.
In the end SC was too physical (bigs) and too fast (guards) for Stanford.
Expand ...
I agree with you but the refs did not lose that game for Stanford--Tara did--like Geno, she is embedded into doing the same thing the same way she's always done it, and without doing any reaction strategy. Example, she takes Brink out and she's just eating Boston alive, has completely snuffed her, but what does Tara do? She takes Brink out with the two fouls. When will traditional coaches understand the the points you score in the second quarter--or the ones that don't score in the second quarter--count just as much as the ones you score in the 4th quarter! Perhaps they count even more in the second quarter because with a couple more baskets and the Sanford lead would have been by 24 points or more and this would have broken SC. But no, let's take Brink out--which makes no sense because even if she were to foul out, Stanford has plenty of depth in its front court. But let's take Brink out and allow Boston to recharge and regain her confidence.

Then Tara takes both Jones and Wilson out and since there's no one to bring the ball up court, they have Hull and all getting their pockets picked repeatedly by a much smaller and quicker player--Henderson--who is much adept to imitating steals and so Stanford commences to turn the ball over about 7 or 8 times in 3Q due to guard play and then Henderson and SC score a quick 14 points. How stupid--why?, because we must stay with our regular substitution patterns... Forget the managing to the course of the game, which BTW, Dawn does a great job of.

I can't get on Tara too much because Geno pretty much does the same thing--and he fails to realize this small but evident fact: Before, when you had Stewie, Tuck, KML, Hartley, Dolson, et al, yes you didn't have to react so much to what the other team is doing and change philosophies during the game because your talent level can win you games of and by itself. Having five AA's helps an awful lot. But now with the equity and party in the WBB, can you still afford to coach this way? Programmed coaching?
 
ConwayGmck said:
OK, so I thought this board was a board of intelligent WBB fans. As a non-Connecticut WBB fan, I get to bring some enlightenment.

The Official collegiate women's basketball rules per the NCAA:

RULE 9
Violations and Penalties
Section 1. Free-Throw Violations

Art. 1. After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free-thrower, it is a violation
when:

a - The free-thrower fails to release the try within 10 seconds and in such a
way that the ball enters the basket or touches the ring or flange before the
free throw ends.

b - The free-thrower purposely fakes a try or the free-thrower’s teammates or
opponents purposely fake a violation.

c - The free-thrower breaks the vertical plane of the free-throw line with
either foot before the ball strikes the ring, flange, or backboard, or before
the free throw ends.

d - The free-thrower enters the semicircle after the ball has been placed
at their disposal or leaves before the try contacts the ring, flange, or
backboard, or before the free throw ends.

e - A player enters or leaves a marked lane space or contacts any part of the
playing court outside the marked lane space before the free-thrower has
released the ball.

f - An opponent (player or bench personnel) disconcerts (e.g., taunts, baits,
gestures or delays) the free-thrower.

g - Any player not located in a legal marked lane space fails to remain behind
the free-throw line extended and behind the three-point field-goal line
until the ball strikes the ring, flange or backboard, or until the free throw
ends.

h - Any player occupying any of the legal marked lane spaces on each side
of the lane breaks the vertical plane of a lane-space boundary before the
free-thrower has released the ball.

i - Any player occupying a legal marked lane space has either foot beyond
the vertical plane of the outside edge of any legal lane boundary, beyond
the vertical plane of any edge of space (2 by 36 inches) designated by a
legal lane-space mark or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the lane
before the ball is released by the free-thrower.

j - A team has more than the maximum number of players permitted on the
free-throw lane.

k - An opponent of the free-thrower fails to occupy each lane space above and
adjacent to the block.

l - A teammate of the free-thrower occupies either of the legal lane spaces
above and adjacent to the block.

(Page 77)

The only rules violations involve contact of player's feet where it involves entitled spaces on the floor. There is NO rule violation for coming into contact with an opposing player in order to position for the rebound of a missed attempt. The determination of a player's positioning in relevance to assigned/entitled "marked lane spaces" involves the positioning of their feet in contact with the playing surface.

Opposing players have been allowed to engage in contact with their hands/arms/elbows/shoulders in battling for rebounding positioning - as long as the above rules are not violated - in both collegiate and professional basketball for literally generations. It is viewed as no different than two opposing players battling and positioning for rebounding positioning under the basket during a shot attempt from the field. They both have a right to the vertical spaces they occupy, and the right to fight to maintain that occupation.

It has always fallen to the officials to determine if any physical contact falls outside of the boundaries of "normal basketball contact" - a player cannot shove an opposing player aside, and cannot punch an opponent in the face and call it battling for positioning. But that interpretation by the officials have always been there, and for all aspects of playing basketball.

Boston did NOT push or shove Belibi into the lane. She leaned or pushed sideways into Belibi in the act of battling for rebounding positioning. Boston herself almost stepped into the lane - she was on her tip-toes when she leaned into Belibi. Belibi herself let herself lose her balance, and stepped into the lane prior to the ball leaving Brink's hands.

So the appropriate call for the event: no foul for Boston doing what the rules allow her and anyone else to do; a clear foul of lane violation on Belibi for stepping into the lane before Brink let loose of the free throw shot attempt.
Expand ...
NONSENSE. Rewatch the play. Before Brink released the ball, Boston invaded the player's space with her arm and her body. It could not have been more blatant. She broke the vertical line boundary next to her. It's just the typical garbage you get with terrible choke officiating. It's a violation according to the very rules you posted. Boston has been doing this all year and the refs refuse to call it. Tara did nothing about it.

I think we need to have one set of referees for both men and women's college basketball. I feel like we only get second stringers. I've seen better officiating in CYO and AAU, not to mention high school.
 
Boston clearly violated h:


h - Any player occupying any of the legal marked lane spaces on each side
of the lane breaks the vertical plane of a lane-space boundary before the
free-thrower has released the ball.

"Vertical plane" is not limited to the 2 lines which mark the lane from the FT line to the baseline. It includes the shorter lines which mark each lane-space.

Don't count me as a sour-graper. I was hoping both teams lost.
 
.-.
BBallF said:
When is a lean a push? If the movement of Boston's body causes the lane infraction it is still the cause of the infraction whether she uses her hands or her body and it is still a foul or at least a no call. SC got two glaring no calls/ calls in their favor down the stretch. I can't really remember Boston being in foul trouble lately but if you watch closely you will see that she pushes/ leans constantly.
Expand ...
Absolutely...
 
I think I saw Tara ask the refs if they could review the lane violation call, but I dont think its reviewable. Anyway, I dont think it would have affected the outcome.
 
I was switching back and forth from the Eagles game and the SC/Stanford game. So, I didn't see much of what Brink brought to the game. I do know that against TN and SC she was pretty much neutralized by a big center ( Key/Boston). Picking up fouls didn't help either. Consistent offensive play by Brink would have helped in the Cardinal loss. She and Prechtel did not offset Boston (points).
What killed SC IMO was the offense provided by Henderson. She is a different player this year.
 
hookshot said:
Replay showed no clear evidence of a push, only a lean, and Bielibi bit on the lean. maybe a light push on the back, that's all it takes, but you don't get a clear view of such
Expand ...
I recorded the game. I looked at that play 5-6 times. Can’t tell if Boston nudged or pulled her. She did have her hand on Belibi’s left torso. How much she “helped” Belibi step into the lane is questionable.

Both of them were leaning over their skis. That was a huge play at the time. It negated the 2nd free throw which could have lead to a 2 point basket on a offensive rebound and put back by Stanford.
 
.-.
Rixxx said:
I was switching back and forth from the Eagles game and the SC/Stanford game. So, I didn't see much of what Brink brought to the game. I do know that against TN and SC she was pretty much neutralized by a big center ( Key/Boston). Picking up fouls didn't help either. Consistent offensive play by Brink would have helped in the Cardinal loss. She and Prechtel did not offset Boston (points).
What killed SC IMO was the offense provided by Henderson. She is a different player this year.
Expand ...
You meant "killed" in a positive way correct? Typically, that word is considered a negative.
 
Rixxx said:
Typo. Thanks. What killed Stanford....
Expand ...
Thought that was what you meant. Seemed a little odd that Henderson would hurt her team while helping them win. ;)

I've been there with the typos on this board. I can empathize.
 
Charliebball said:
Stanford looked a lot like UConn out there, showing a lack of composure at key moments...........they should have won that game....
Expand ...
No. If they should’ve they would’ve. You’re not gonna win many games if you let the other team go in a 22-4 run.
 
.-.
huskiemaniac said:
Boston clearly violated h:


h - Any player occupying any of the legal marked lane spaces on each side
of the lane breaks the vertical plane of a lane-space boundary before the
free-thrower has released the ball.

"Vertical plane" is not limited to the 2 lines which mark the lane from the FT line to the baseline. It includes the shorter lines which mark each lane-space.

Don't count me as a sour-graper. I was hoping both teams lost.
Expand ...
Exactly. Otherwise there would be no need for the shorter lines like it was years ago.
 
ConwayGmck said:
Are you suggesting that ANY contact between players during the free throw - as long as they stay standing in their spaces and do not step into the lane - is a rule violation?
Expand ...
According to subsection h. of the rule, it apparently is. That subsection says any breaking of the lane space boundaries before the ball is released is a violation. It's not limited to feed. So if two players touch before the shot is released, one of them has committed a violation.

I'm stunned that shooting a freethrow that doesn't go in or touch the basket is a violation. See subsection a. I don't think I've ever seen a player miss the basket, but I know I've never seen that called.
 
Carnac said:
I recorded the game. I looked at that play 5-6 times. Can’t tell if Boston nudged or pulled her. She did have her hand on Belibi’s left torso. How much she “helped” Belibi step into the lane is questionable.

Both of them were leaning over their skis. That was a huge play at the time. It negated the 2nd free throw which could have lead to a 2 point basket on a offensive rebound and put back by Stanford.
Expand ...
The point is not the lean/push it's the fact that Boston violated the rule by entering the vertical space of the player next to her with her arm and body before the shot was taken thereby gaining any unfair advantage under the rule and thereby making that player off balance and further making that player enter the lane.

Beyond that, Tara dropped a notch in my book. Terrible play with 24 seconds left and down 1. Tell Haley or Lexi to get the ball at the top of the key, clear everyone out with movement and let either of them drive. Shot by Brink was horrible.
 
Entry to Brink was fine at the Elbow. My Monday night coaching tells me that once the ball was entered, maybe Jones should’ve posted up her much smaller defender on the low block for a high low between her and Brink. Damn I’m a great coach!!!
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,287
Messages
4,561,455
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom