Worth seeing again

[cabbie191]

Seems to be a dirty play. Look at slow motion its clear she ducks to undercut Stewart A VERY dangerous thing to do Stewart could have landed on her head, broken a hand, arm shoulder, neck, back etc ! HIGHLY dangerous to UNDERCUT !!!!!

I don't agree. Cable was looking at the basket and moving in for a rebound - she'd have no way of knowing the Stewart was going to be jumping in so strongly. (If that wasn't the case, if women's players jumped in this way as a matter of routine, I don't think there would have been such excitement out of Burke.)

Her "duck" occurs only after there is contact between Stewart's left thigh and Cable's right shoulder.

 

[johnnyc]

Watch MLJ's slo-mo clip linked above. Cable bent over because Stewie was falling on her. If Cable had stood up, people would be accusing her of trying to throw Stewie to the floor.

I did watch it. I disagree.....Stewart wasn't coming down yet when Cable starts to bend over but anyway no harm no foul thankfully. What I want to know now is..... isn't there enough Breanna Stewart highlights for a Nike 'I Wanna Be Like Bre' commercial?

 

[Icebear]

Just noticed a bit of definitive information for me. Stewie is already 10-12 inches in the air and Cable's lead foot is still her left foot then she crosses in front of Stewie with her right arm and right foot way late. This is really obvious when going frame by frame if you have that ability.

Check at the .57 sec point in the longer ESPN video and at the .07 view in the shorter baseline.

 

[Dougie]

Here's another view:

WOW

Now that I have watched this clip more times than the Zapruder film I concur with others who say that this was not intentional. I remember cringing at the time just knowing how close to disaster you can get on any one play. Watching great clips in slow motion gives you a heightened appreciation for just how physical the game is.

 

[xHunt3r]

Sorry, but the best part of the video to me is Cable fixing her hair while the ball is in the air so that she is complexly ready for the rebound!

Was she trying to injure Stewart? I don't think so. It does look like she intentional turns and backs into Stewart as they make contact to me. Just glade no one was injured.

 

[TWG236]

I agree with Cabbie191 and Husky Nan. When you watch the video, Cable is looking up at the basket and getting into rebounding position. She doesn't even know where Stewie is. Stewie comes out of nowhere from behind and above her. Just two talented basketball players trying to grab a rebound for their team. Let's be grateful that neither player sustained any type of injury. As far as the ball being on the rim, I don't believe any of the ref's had ever seen anything like this before in a women's game and were just as amazed as the player's on the court. It happened so fast and was so spectacular that when it was over they couldn't tell you if the ball was or wasn't on the rim. Judgment call, not reviewable. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to always look for the worst in people, when we write that stuff we sound like the Tennessee forum. We won, ND lost. End of story.

 

[JS]

I concur with others who say that this was not intentional.

Me too. Cable intends to go for the rebound.

1. After glancing back -- more behind her in front court than in Stewie's direction; well coached; considering whether there's anybody to box out -- she moves toward the hoop, face upturned, eyes on the ball and rim the whole time.

2. She's going for the rebound on the normal plane, not the Stewie "plane." She'll wait for the ball to come down a bit more. Is gathering herself for the leap and just starting to raise her right arm into reach position when Stewie slams into the right shoulder.

3. The crouch is pretty normal for someone who's just been landed on from behind by an unknown flying object (not that Stewie's UFO-spacey).

The whole point of people's astonishment at the play was that Stewie did something very fast and very unexpected -- least of all by Cable, who was focused elsewhere and just trying to do her job.

Deliberate undercut, IMO, is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Icebear]

Remember a flagrant 1 does not include intention to harm.

 

[Biff]

Me too. Cable intends to go for the rebound.

1. After glancing back -- more behind her in front court than in Stewie's direction; well coached; considering whether there's anybody to box out -- she moves toward the hoop, face upturned, eyes on the ball and rim the whole time.

2. She's going for the rebound on the normal plane, not the Stewie "plane." She'll wait for the ball to come down a bit more. Is gathering herself for the leap and just starting to raise her right arm into reach position when Stewie slams into the right shoulder.

3. The crouch is pretty normal for someone who's just been landed on from behind by an unknown flying object (not that Stewie's UFO-spacey).

The whole point of people's astonishment at the play was that Stewie did something very fast and very unexpected -- least of all by Cable, who was focused elsewhere and just trying to do her job.

Deliberate undercut, IMO, is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.

You leave out one point that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere either. When Cable's shoulder is beginning to make contact with Stewie's leg, Stewie's left hand comes down in a motion that would swat Cable's face and I believe that part of the motivation of Cable's crouch was trying to get her face out of the way of Stewie approaching hand.

 

[Icebear]

Me too. Cable intends to go for the rebound.

1. After glancing back -- more behind her in front court than in Stewie's direction; well coached; considering whether there's anybody to box out -- she moves toward the hoop, face upturned, eyes on the ball and rim the whole time.

2. She's going for the rebound on the normal plane, not the Stewie "plane." She'll wait for the ball to come down a bit more. Is gathering herself for the leap and just starting to raise her right arm into reach position when Stewie slams into the right shoulder.

3. The crouch is pretty normal for someone who's just been landed on from behind by an unknown flying object (not that Stewie's UFO-spacey).

The whole point of people's astonishment at the play was that Stewie did something very fast and very unexpected -- least of all by Cable, who was focused elsewhere and just trying to do her job.

Deliberate undercut, IMO, is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.

Deliberate no, late and flagrant yes. As I said Stewie is well in the air before Cable steps in with her right leg. This can only be appreciated in stop action. Also, Cable is far to beneath the rim to rebound effectively but that is just taking a bad position.

 

[Zorro]

Can a foul be flagrant if it is not deliberate? (Sincere question, not meant to be argumentative.)

 

[NewCorn]

Seems to be a dirty play. Look at slow motion its clear she ducks to undercut Stewart A VERY dangerous thing to do Stewart could have landed on her head, broken a hand, arm shoulder, neck, back etc ! HIGHLY dangerous to UNDERCUT !!!!!

I'm sure Cable never saw Stewie, she was simply trying to position herself for the rebound.

 

[ursusminor]

This can only be appreciated in stop action.

Watching in slow-motion and frame-by-frame completely distorts what happened in real time. People can't assess a situation, react, and change the momentum of their whole body instantly. It happened very fast.

 

[Icebear]

Watching in slow-motion and frame-by-frame completely distorts what happened in real time. People can't assess a situation, react, and change the momentum of their whole body instantly. It happened very fast.

I agree but it does tell you where people were at certain points of time. It does see things that cannot be recognized in real time and game flow.

 

[hoopingcrane]

Me too. Cable intends to go for the rebound.

1. After glancing back -- more behind her in front court than in Stewie's direction; well coached; considering whether there's anybody to box out -- she moves toward the hoop, face upturned, eyes on the ball and rim the whole time.

2. She's going for the rebound on the normal plane, not the Stewie "plane." She'll wait for the ball to come down a bit more. Is gathering herself for the leap and just starting to raise her right arm into reach position when Stewie slams into the right shoulder.

3. The crouch is pretty normal for someone who's just been landed on from behind by an unknown flying object (not that Stewie's UFO-spacey).

The whole point of people's astonishment at the play was that Stewie did something very fast and very unexpected -- least of all by Cable, who was focused elsewhere and just trying to do her job.

Deliberate undercut, IMO, is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.

I don't think she moved in to create the contact, but bending over resulting in the undercut, even if to protect yourself, will put you in serious danger out on the playground.

 

[UcMiami]

We all had a scare in the NCAAs last year when Stewart running alone and untouched went down in a heap as she tried to change direction. Basketball is full of moments where injuries can occur that alter teams. A lot of those situation occur on rebounding opportunities where players are more focused on the rim and the ball than their immediate surroundings. And where there are a lot of bodies in a very small area of the court, many of them airborne and having to land somewhere - probably the most frequent injury occurs when they land on someone else's foot and damage their own ankle or foot.
There seem to be a few moments in every basketball game I watch where i hold my breath, whether it be Mo's momentum taking her into the basket stanchion or the scorer's table or the crowd, or a hard foul, or a player pile-up under the basket. This was just another of those moments. I didn't see anything intentional, or dirty - just two players playing the game with intensity, and one making a spectacular play. I have seen plenty of intentional 'undercuts' in basketball games and this one simply does not qualify. The most surprised player on the court was Cable and she reacted the way anyone does who at the last possible second becomes aware that something is flying at her head. She ducked for cover and her momentum and reaction put her completely off balance as she ducked her head out of harms way. Unintentional, without malice, and while it ended up in a dangerous situation, was not a flagrant foul.

 

[ursusminor]

Can a foul be flagrant if it is not deliberate? (Sincere question, not meant to be argumentative.)

More than that, I think, is can you call a double unintentional flagrant? I just don't see how it's fair to call a flagrant only on Cable when she didn't initiate contact or even possibly know what was going on. I'm not sure what else the refs were supposed to do given what happened and how fast it happened.

 

[AndyCT]

Take a look at Katie Lou's expression at the end. Mouth wide open.
She has seen a great athletic move, and she loves it !

Rebecca stated that Geno has told Breanna her senior season would be measured by how many “wow” moments she had. Katie Lou’s face tells us that she has just had an up-close-and-personal view of a Breanna Stewart “wow” moment.

 

[AndyCT]

Me too. Cable intends to go for the rebound.

1. After glancing back -- more behind her in front court than in Stewie's direction; well coached; considering whether there's anybody to box out -- she moves toward the hoop, face upturned, eyes on the ball and rim the whole time.

2. She's going for the rebound on the normal plane, not the Stewie "plane." She'll wait for the ball to come down a bit more. Is gathering herself for the leap and just starting to raise her right arm into reach position when Stewie slams into the right shoulder.

3. The crouch is pretty normal for someone who's just been landed on from behind by an unknown flying object (not that Stewie's UFO-spacey).

The whole point of people's astonishment at the play was that Stewie did something very fast and very unexpected -- least of all by Cable, who was focused elsewhere and just trying to do her job.

Deliberate undercut, IMO, is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.

At best, "in the eyes of the beholder".

This is a really scary play. Well, not the play itself – what’s scary is the fact that we can’t just acknowledge it as a great basketball play by Breanna and move on.

Frame-by-frame analysis aside (seriously?), if Maddie even saw Breanna in her periphery as she watched Moriah’s shot go up, she couldn’t have expected Breanna to beat her to the rebound from outside the three-point line…who would have?

And for those of us that also don’t have zoom capability to analyze Maddie’s eye movement (really?), the consensus seems to be that at least her head follows the trajectory of the ball and that she moves directly to the spot of the rebound – a spot that she is equally entitled to. It’s the correct spot – we know that because Breanna arrived at the same spot at the same time – just three feet higher than Madison.

And as has been posted here and elsewhere, had Madison been stationary, or had she gotten a hand on the ball first, it almost certainly would have been an over-the-back call on Breanna instead. As it was, they arrived together, Breanna got the ball and Madison got the foul - correct call.


When Caroline Doty was called for a flagrant foul against Louisville’s Bria Smith in the 2013 National Championship, while Dave and Doris debated the foul, as soon as the whistle blew Caroline went up and acknowledged the foul to Bria. That’s all you needed to know.

After this play, Brianna wasn’t upset, the players weren’t upset, and the coaches weren’t upset – no jawing, no glares, nothing. That’s all you needed to know.

Neither Dave nor Doris ever spoke about any undercut, nor did Rebecca at the half or in the (very short, admittedly) postgame; nothing in the post-game pressers, nor as far as I can tell, in any of the professional media. Why are we? It seems that most of us get that Maddie Cable is probably the last Notre Dame player that would ever knowingly undercut a player, intentionally or non-intentionally.

This is not dirty a play. It’s not flagrant foul. It’s just good basketball by both players with an unfortunate outcome.

 

[UcMiami]

Nice post AndyCT - and especially like your bringing up the players reactions and the coaches - if anyone thought it was intentional there would have been a reaction - uconn players have their teammates backs and so do the coaches.