What influenced the referees in the Tennessee game

[Big Mick]

...
Just my opinion:

I expect that referees look at videos of previous games of the teams in their upcoming games.

Given that, and hearing Geno's very favorable compliments as to how UCONNs previous game was officiated, there was a "let them play" takeaway.

Within the game then, we saw the first quarter with no fouls being called.

What changed:
Geno was right - UCONN didn't change anything.

Kellie - had to stop that parade to the rim that resulted in 33 1st quarter points. So, Jam the lanes, put bodies on bodies, and we heard her half time address to her team - reinforcing that stand your ground, etc. My expectation was that that message was given before the start of the 2nd quarter, where UCONN got just 7 points.

Referees: that "let them play" was quickly abandoned and they went back to their normal refereeing mode.

Presto: Everyone was unhappy and said so.

 

[Centerstream]

Maybe the refs are privy to the live stats between quarters and realized that UConn had scored 33 points in the 1st quarter without the help of FTs and that Tenn had scored quite a bit fewer points without the help of FTs, so...
I also think that the Tenn coach spent quite a bit of time in the nearest ref's ear during the game. Maybe it worked.

 

[brownale]

Current women's game is too fast for the quality of referees available. Probably would not as bad if teams are slow and play is a deliberate style.

 

[BBallF]

I'm much more cynical. Somebody didn't want a blowout on national TV ( we were up 16 when the 1st quarter ended) after all that stupid hype so somebody said something or perhaps it was a pre-game discussion. These are are possibilities in my mind. We had no free throws in the first quarter and 2 in the second. They had 2 in the first and 10 in the second. Were we just tired and started to foul or did the refs call it differently? Geno was pretty direct in his answer at halftime. The easiest way to tighten a game is to put a team that misses their field goals on the line. The third quarter was back to another kind of game calling. Tennessee wound up with only 4 free throws in the entire second half coming all in the third quarter. No free throws were shot in the entire 4th quarter by either team. Too stilted to pass the smell test for me.

 

[JoePgh]

I watched the game both live and on replay. I had no issue with any of the calls against either team in the first half, with the sole exception of Lou's third foul, which should have been a block instead of a charge.

Of the three referees, I recognized the names of Joseph Vaczily (who has reffed a number of major UConn games as well as other contests between Top 10 teams for a number of years, and who does have a consistent pattern of favoring charges over blocks, but otherwise appears to me to be a referee of integrity who is not influenced by home crowds or coach's comments), and Eric Brewton, who has also reffed a number of top-level WCBB games, mostly without controversy. I did not recognize the name of Gina Cross, the third ref, but she was not involved in most of the calls that were questioned.

On the double foul call in the second half, Vaczily originally observed the incident and called an intentional call (apparently on Jackson). Then the other two referees reviewed the video replay -- that seems like a good procedure, since at that point they could be considered more neutral than Vaczily. It appears that the other two referees concluded that the call should be changed to a double intentional foul. That could possibly have been unconsciously influenced by the home crowd, but I prefer to believe that at a conscious level, all three referees were acting with integrity and calling what they saw.

During the game, the announcers commented that several of the charge calls against both teams appeared on review to be blocks, but noted (correctly) that this had gone consistently against both teams. I would analogize that to a baseball umpire with a high strike zone, who will call a strike on a shoulder-high pitch that most other umps will call a ball. As long as he is consistent for both team's pitchers, it's just something that the teams have to adjust to.

And on the Hollingshead drive against Aubrey that was reversed in Tennessee's favor, after watching it for a third time after being made aware of the "lower defensive box" rule (see other thread on this), I could see that Hollingshead was more than three feet from the lane when she caught the pass, and was therefore out of the LDB. So the reversal of Vaczily's original charge call was correct on that basis.

Regarding Geno's halftime comments, I recognize that they are a departure for Geno's usual commentary. I suspect that the 3rd foul on Lou was probably the precipitating factor. I also wonder if there wasn't an element of deliberate theater in his comments ("working the refs" in a different forum).

In this game, as in nearly all others, the referees did not decide the game. In my opinion, there is no basis for questioning their integrity. I wish that fans of both teams would stop doing that (at least without more concrete evidence than what exists in this or other cases), but I see little chance that they will comply with my wishes.

 

[CL82]

What influenced the referees in the Tennessee game?

 

[azfan]

I watched the game both live and on replay. I had no issue with any of the calls against either team in the first half, with the sole exception of Lou's third foul, which should have been a block instead of a charge.

Of the three referees, I recognized the names of Joseph Vaczily (who has reffed a number of major UConn games as well as other contests between Top 10 teams for a number of years, and who does have a consistent pattern of favoring charges over blocks, but otherwise appears to me to be a referee of integrity who is not influenced by home crowds or coach's comments), and Eric Brewton, who has also reffed a number of top-level WCBB games, mostly without controversy. I did not recognize the name of Gina Cross, the third ref, but she was not involved in most of the calls that were questioned.

On the double foul call in the second half, Vaczily originally observed the incident and called an intentional call (apparently on Jackson). Then the other two referees reviewed the video replay -- that seems like a good procedure, since at that point they could be considered more neutral than Vaczily. It appears that the other two referees concluded that the call should be changed to a double intentional foul. That could possibly have been unconsciously influenced by the home crowd, but I prefer to believe that at a conscious level, all three referees were acting with integrity and calling what they saw.

During the game, the announcers commented that several of the charge calls against both teams appeared on review to be blocks, but noted (correctly) that this had gone consistently against both teams. I would analogize that to a baseball umpire with a high strike zone, who will call a strike on a shoulder-high pitch that most other umps will call a ball. As long as he is consistent for both team's pitchers, it's just something that the teams have to adjust to.

And on the Hollingshead drive against Aubrey that was reversed in Tennessee's favor, after watching it for a third time after being made aware of the "lower defensive box" rule (see other thread on this), I could see that Hollingshead was more than three feet from the lane when she caught the pass, and was therefore out of the LDB. So the reversal of Vaczily's original charge call was correct on that basis.

Regarding Geno's halftime comments, I recognize that they are a departure for Geno's usual commentary. I suspect that the 3rd foul on Lou was probably the precipitating factor. I also wonder if there wasn't an element of deliberate theater in his comments ("working the refs" in a different forum).

In this game, as in nearly all others, the referees did not decide the game. In my opinion, there is no basis for questioning their integrity. I wish that fans of both teams would stop doing that (at least without more concrete evidence than what exists in this or other cases), but I see little chance that they will comply with my wishes.

Bob Joyce on the radio call said much the same thing. He indicated that Joe Vaziily was a good referee although in addition to the major incident between Edwards and Jackson there were numerous missed charges on both teams.

Ref's just like the rest of us are human and have both good and bad games. Clear what this game was for them.

 

[Centerstream]

I watched the game both live and on replay. I had no issue with any of the calls against either team in the first half, with the sole exception of Lou's third foul, which should have been a block instead of a charge.

And someone else can watch the same game live and via replay and come up with the opposite conclusion. Unless you are the actual referee, it all can be subjective.

 

[Happydad745]

I watched the game both live and on replay. I had no issue with any of the calls against either team in the first half, with the sole exception of Lou's third foul, which should have been a block instead of a charge.

Of the three referees, I recognized the names of Joseph Vaczily (who has reffed a number of major UConn games as well as other contests between Top 10 teams for a number of years, and who does have a consistent pattern of favoring charges over blocks, but otherwise appears to me to be a referee of integrity who is not influenced by home crowds or coach's comments), and Eric Brewton, who has also reffed a number of top-level WCBB games, mostly without controversy. I did not recognize the name of Gina Cross, the third ref, but she was not involved in most of the calls that were questioned.

On the double foul call in the second half, Vaczily originally observed the incident and called an intentional call (apparently on Jackson). Then the other two referees reviewed the video replay -- that seems like a good procedure, since at that point they could be considered more neutral than Vaczily. It appears that the other two referees concluded that the call should be changed to a double intentional foul. That could possibly have been unconsciously influenced by the home crowd, but I prefer to believe that at a conscious level, all three referees were acting with integrity and calling what they saw.

During the game, the announcers commented that several of the charge calls against both teams appeared on review to be blocks, but noted (correctly) that this had gone consistently against both teams. I would analogize that to a baseball umpire with a high strike zone, who will call a strike on a shoulder-high pitch that most other umps will call a ball. As long as he is consistent for both team's pitchers, it's just something that the teams have to adjust to.

And on the Hollingshead drive against Aubrey that was reversed in Tennessee's favor, after watching it for a third time after being made aware of the "lower defensive box" rule (see other thread on this), I could see that Hollingshead was more than three feet from the lane when she caught the pass, and was therefore out of the LDB. So the reversal of Vaczily's original charge call was correct on that basis.

Regarding Geno's halftime comments, I recognize that they are a departure for Geno's usual commentary. I suspect that the 3rd foul on Lou was probably the precipitating factor. I also wonder if there wasn't an element of deliberate theater in his comments ("working the refs" in a different forum).

In this game, as in nearly all others, the referees did not decide the game. In my opinion, there is no basis for questioning their integrity. I wish that fans of both teams would stop doing that (at least without more concrete evidence than what exists in this or other cases), but I see little chance that they will comply with my wishes.

I watched the double foul many times on replay....Jackson should have been given a Technical foul resulting in a rejection from the game...she intentionally tried to do damage to Edwards, and foul likes this have to be dealt with properly.

 

[JoePgh]

And someone else can watch the same game live and via replay and come up with the opposite conclusion. Unless you are the actual referee, it all can be subjective.

Even if you ARE the actual referee, it is inherently subjective. If a computer could call the game, that would be done. All that we can ask is that referees act with integrity and resist outside influences such as the booing of the home crowd or the halftime comments of coaches.

 

[BBallF]

I watched the game both live and on replay. I had no issue with any of the calls against either team in the first half, with the sole exception of Lou's third foul, which should have been a block instead of a charge.

Of the three referees, I recognized the names of Joseph Vaczily (who has reffed a number of major UConn games as well as other contests between Top 10 teams for a number of years, and who does have a consistent pattern of favoring charges over blocks, but otherwise appears to me to be a referee of integrity who is not influenced by home crowds or coach's comments), and Eric Brewton, who has also reffed a number of top-level WCBB games, mostly without controversy. I did not recognize the name of Gina Cross, the third ref, but she was not involved in most of the calls that were questioned.

On the double foul call in the second half, Vaczily originally observed the incident and called an intentional call (apparently on Jackson). Then the other two referees reviewed the video replay -- that seems like a good procedure, since at that point they could be considered more neutral than Vaczily. It appears that the other two referees concluded that the call should be changed to a double intentional foul. That could possibly have been unconsciously influenced by the home crowd, but I prefer to believe that at a conscious level, all three referees were acting with integrity and calling what they saw.

During the game, the announcers commented that several of the charge calls against both teams appeared on review to be blocks, but noted (correctly) that this had gone consistently against both teams. I would analogize that to a baseball umpire with a high strike zone, who will call a strike on a shoulder-high pitch that most other umps will call a ball. As long as he is consistent for both team's pitchers, it's just something that the teams have to adjust to.

And on the Hollingshead drive against Aubrey that was reversed in Tennessee's favor, after watching it for a third time after being made aware of the "lower defensive box" rule (see other thread on this), I could see that Hollingshead was more than three feet from the lane when she caught the pass, and was therefore out of the LDB. So the reversal of Vaczily's original charge call was correct on that basis.

Regarding Geno's halftime comments, I recognize that they are a departure for Geno's usual commentary. I suspect that the 3rd foul on Lou was probably the precipitating factor. I also wonder if there wasn't an element of deliberate theater in his comments ("working the refs" in a different forum).

In this game, as in nearly all others, the referees did not decide the game. In my opinion, there is no basis for questioning their integrity. I wish that fans of both teams would stop doing that (at least without more concrete evidence than what exists in this or other cases), but I see little chance that they will comply with my wishes.

I totally disagree with the premise that Geno’s halftime explosion was the result of one play. He specifically mentioned the disproportionate officiating comparing both quarters and said words to the effect that this is what you get when you come down here. It wasn’t one call. It was the entire half and especially the second quarter. It was atrocious. I also disagree about the foul involving Aaliyah. That was an overt, direct and calculated attempt to cause bodily injury. It called for a rejection nothing less. If these refs don’t have the guts to call the game according to the rules they should not be there. They also need to go back to baby ref school to figure out the difference between a block and a charge. Yes they got the Aubrey foul right but it isn’t a question to me as to the refs deciding the game it is a question which is occurring all across the country which is how much physical play are you going to allow without blowing the whistle before someone gets seriously injured which I predict is coming.

 

[Monte]

A lot of this nonsense would stop if the refs wore earplugs: They would not hear the crowd, and would not hear the coaches talking into their ears on the sidelines.

 

[tkaes]

I watched the game both live and on replay. I had no issue with any of the calls against either team in the first half, with the sole exception of Lou's third foul, which should have been a block instead of a charge.

Of the three referees, I recognized the names of Joseph Vaczily (who has reffed a number of major UConn games as well as other contests between Top 10 teams for a number of years, and who does have a consistent pattern of favoring charges over blocks, but otherwise appears to me to be a referee of integrity who is not influenced by home crowds or coach's comments), and Eric Brewton, who has also reffed a number of top-level WCBB games, mostly without controversy. I did not recognize the name of Gina Cross, the third ref, but she was not involved in most of the calls that were questioned.

On the double foul call in the second half, Vaczily originally observed the incident and called an intentional call (apparently on Jackson). Then the other two referees reviewed the video replay -- that seems like a good procedure, since at that point they could be considered more neutral than Vaczily. It appears that the other two referees concluded that the call should be changed to a double intentional foul. That could possibly have been unconsciously influenced by the home crowd, but I prefer to believe that at a conscious level, all three referees were acting with integrity and calling what they saw.

During the game, the announcers commented that several of the charge calls against both teams appeared on review to be blocks, but noted (correctly) that this had gone consistently against both teams. I would analogize that to a baseball umpire with a high strike zone, who will call a strike on a shoulder-high pitch that most other umps will call a ball. As long as he is consistent for both team's pitchers, it's just something that the teams have to adjust to.

And on the Hollingshead drive against Aubrey that was reversed in Tennessee's favor, after watching it for a third time after being made aware of the "lower defensive box" rule (see other thread on this), I could see that Hollingshead was more than three feet from the lane when she caught the pass, and was therefore out of the LDB. So the reversal of Vaczily's original charge call was correct on that basis.

Regarding Geno's halftime comments, I recognize that they are a departure for Geno's usual commentary. I suspect that the 3rd foul on Lou was probably the precipitating factor. I also wonder if there wasn't an element of deliberate theater in his comments ("working the refs" in a different forum).

In this game, as in nearly all others, the referees did not decide the game. In my opinion, there is no basis for questioning their integrity. I wish that fans of both teams would stop doing that (at least without more concrete evidence than what exists in this or other cases), but I see little chance that they will comply with my wishes.

Joe, your statements (see emboldened) are contradictory. If Vaczily has a consistent pattern of favoring charges over blocks then he is not refereeing by the rule book and therefore is not a referee of integrity. Officials in all sports should not be allowed to interpret the rules. They are paid to enforce the rules. IMO there are few officials with integrity.

And don't get me started on baseball umpires. The most egregious problem in all of sports iis the calling of balls and strikes. There is no such thing as the high strike or low strike in the rule book. There is no such thing as a pitched ball that is just off the plate being a strike in the rule book. If I were commissioner I'd fire any umpire who claimed or demonstrated he had his own strike zone immediately for cause. Thank God MLB is going to be implementing the automated visual balls and strike system in the Minors this year. It's worked in tennis for a long time now.

 

[RedStickHusky]

I've gotten to the point where I cringe whenever I hear that "they're letting them play". Firstly because it imparts a considerable degree of discretionary authority where there should be none. I don't want the refs seeing a foul and calling a foul to be two separate decisions. Secondly, it is inevitable that "letting them play" usually escalates to "loss of control" and a reactionary swing to "tightly called" confusing the players. I'm personally not buying any corruption or favoritism theories but inconsistency and incompetence are on frequent display.

 

[tkaes]

clearly what uconn was serving up in the first quarter was not to be found anywhere on the checkerboard menu for hometown cooking. cheapshot jackson should have been escorted from the premises by leg cuffs View attachment 83576

I agree. I would have sored that scrum as follows: a common foul on Aaliyah. an intentional on Jackson, and then a flagrant 2 on Jackson for grabbing and starting to twist Aaliyah's ankle as if it were a UFC match. For those of you who didn't see that, watch it again in slow motion.

 

[Forego]

A lot of this nonsense would stop if the refs wore earplugs: They would not hear the crowd, and would not hear the coaches talking into their ears on the sidelines.

With ear plugs the refs might not be able to hear the players on other teams directing inappropriate language at the UConn players or coaches. Instead of ear plugs I would recommend regular trips to an optometrist.

I have never a heard a member of the UConn Women’s team use bad language ... at least not in English.

 

[Monte]

With ear plugs the refs might not be able to hear the players on other teams directing inappropriate language at the UConn players or coaches. Instead of ear plugs I would recommend regular trips to an optometrist.

I have never a heard a member of the UConn Women’s team use bad language ... at least not in English.

If inappropriate language is forbidden, then Dawn would not be coaching!