This is just attempting to rationalize the decision rendered. It is still wrong.

This is absolutely correct. This was a deliberate cheap shot.
The best ruling would have been a held ball followed by a technical foul which carries an ejection. Whatever that is called in NCAAW terminology.

Did I say I agreed with it? If you remember, my first comment off my initial look in real time was F2. All I said was I can see how they came up with the CDBT based on what they saw on the replay.

I'm not so sure I see this as intentional. The way they came down with the held ball, it appears that Black 22's hand was on the ball under White 33's hand, and as her hand came loose, she got her in the face with a backhand/wrist.

Live action, on the first angle without zoom, it looks like a forearm, and I'd definitely toss Black 22 for that, but when you see the replays, especially slowed down, it doesn't look the same.

This is what they ruled. A held ball followed by a CDBTF, instead of the flagrant 2 T which most of us agree was warranted.

The contact looked a little too well placed to be anything other than F2 in my opinion...but I'm not on the court, with the benefit of knowing the exact NCAAW criteria and able to see it from all angles available at court side. In the big scheme of things, this one doesn't seem to rise to the level of egregious error on the part of the crew by any means.

F2 in my opinion..

That's essentially what I was trying to say earlier. Thank you for finding a better way to say it. Again, things look different under the bright lights and in slow motion.



The NCAAW criteria isn't any different than NCAAM. The rule for F2s includes the words "severe" and "extreme" (the act doesn't have to be both). As I said earlier, I can see how Missouri #22 was allowed to stay in the game based on the rule and what they saw/didn't see on the replay and - possibly - the emotional temperature of the game.