NCAAW Louisville/Miss St
 

Two plays I’d like to see:

(1) the technical foul at 2:42 in the 4Q
(2) the last play of regulation

These were two very interesting calls at crucial points of the game, that were either made, or not.

1) Personally, I thought the first call of "slapping the floor," made in anger and or frustration was a good "T" made right on the spot by the L. Unfortunately, it was a game changer and #5 on one of the better players for Louisville who was gone for good. Tough call.

2) I thought that was a foul. It even took the Louisville player to the floor hard......while they could have made the rebound to win, I thought they passed on the initial foul.

Rough game with a lot of physical play the officials let go. The announcers were harsh and critical of the amount of contact that was passed on - mostly against MSU's 6'7" center.

IMO, this game, and the following one, UCONN vs ND were two excellent games for the sport!

Those two games were too good for the sport of women's college basketball? [emoji16]

I didn't see the technical foul. As far as the layup at the end of regulation I can see why the play was passed on. Defender was running side-by-side with the offensive player and the offensive player jumped right into her armpit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

IMHO,

The technical was deserved and assessed quickly and correctly

The no call at the end of regulation was a 50/50 call. The L was on the other side of the lane and may not have seen the initial contact before the lay up attempt.

As much as we like to say "we don't officiate time and score," we all know that's not 100% true.

Tie game, end of regulation-a foul there has to be high-certainty. It was not anywhere close to an "obvious" foul IMO, and FWIW I'm not even sure I have a foul in the first quarter on this play.

And I had no problem with the T. Some officials might not have whacked there, but if you're a player you have no one to blame but yourself when you do something that causes an official to have to make that decision.

Pretty sure he meant to type "two".

Pretty sure HE went back and corrected it too! :D

Finally saw the two plays. Foul preceding the tech and the tech itself were good. IMO the Louisville coach should have also been whacked for his wave-offs and profanity following the technical.

Contact at end of regulation is an easy foul. Defender was never in LGP.

Pretty sure I had an emoji at the end of that sentence.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I have two supervisors who would fire me for not calling a technical foul on that play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I thought it was a great technical foul and took courage as well. But then again the official in question has probably worked more Final Fours than just about anyone in NCAA history. So I think she is OK with her place in the game.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OFCch0nvwSs" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YhSmvmWjkIQ" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Very close play. I am OK with no foul if that kind of play has not been called a foul most of the game. Women's basketball often does not have plays like that with a very big player, so I am actually fine with no foul call.

Peace

Based on past situations, I am under the impression that the NCAA is not the catalyst for banning videos on YouTube. I think it is about CBS. Something tells me that ESPN does not care about videos that high light plays for the purpose I have made them.

But that could change, but I hope these plays stay up for discussion purposes.

Peace

On the last play the defender didn't cause the contact so it's a good no call. Considering time and score it's a great no call.

The defender didn't cause contact? You do realize that who causes contact is not the basis for a foul, right?

Either way, in this play, there was contact that came from a defender not in LGP that displaced a shooter and likely impacted her ability to make the shot. At any other time of the game, that would have been a foul. That was only not a foul because they were "letting the players decide the game". :/

I think it will be interesting to see if that play is on next season's rules video under "protect the shooter" or "officiate the game; manage situations" or something.

I still see a defender who's running side-by-side with an offensive player and I still see a defender who never jumped into the offensive player or even moved in the offensive player's direction. The defender even ended up landing away from the shooter, not towards the shooter.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Foul occurs at 2.3 when offensive player changes her path (which is her right) and then the defender who is not in LGP causes contact on the side of the offensive player.

I can defend a foul call and I can defend the no call. That makes this a 50-50 play. And on a 50-50 play with a tie score near the buzzer, I'm no calling.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I'm with Arem on this - after watching the play like 70-80 times, the simple question comes down to what took the player to the floor, and it was the contact, and was the contact legal or illegal?

To the point of the no-call, the worst thing that could happen on that its a tie ballgame, you let the players decide it, and you go into OT, which is what they did. . .

Same exact play just happened at 6:56 3Q of the National Championship Game, and it was called a foul.

And again at 5:35 4Q. Also called a foul.

Means absolutely nothing to me or my opinion on the play from the semi-final.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I didn’t suggest that it should.

A 50-50 decision in the 3Q does not carry anywhere close to the same level of scrutiny that a 50-50 decision on the last play of a tied game carries. Like it or not, that's the way it is and that's why this job is an art, not a science.

We can't even reach a consensus on this thread about what happened on the play. That tells me that the Final Four official responsible for making that call or no-call did just fine.

Only because some are basing their decision on time/score considerations.

If presented in a vacuum I'm sure there would be a consensus, or something around 80/20 in favor of foul.

But they didn't let the players decide. They decided based on the no call. If they shoot free throws, miss both, the game goes into OT, then it is decided by the players.

Why is a "no call" letting the players decide the game? The defensive player, IMO, was not in legal guarding position and contacts the shooter in the act. Not calling or calling a foul on that play is making a decision which aids in the result of the game's outcome.

When I first viewed the video I was expecting to see a player get hammered to the floor. The play was nowhere near that. And that the play was far enough away from being an "obvious" foul that in that situation a no-call was the right call.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I know the 2 supervisors I have who do the most video review and the most training of their staffs would want this play no-called.

Add me to the foul column. Defender is not legal and makes contact with an airborne shooter causing her to lose balance and land against the basket support. She did not go down like that on her own. The official did a great job of getting in front of that play and looked to have a great angle, but just didn't make the call.

This is a Slot play IMO, Lead has a "B" look.

I agree with Bob Jenkins. It will be interesting to see if this makes our video next year. To me the defender is running straight down her path and never comes into the offensive player. In fact the overhead angle has her, IMHO, moving to her right a step. They come together at a spot on the floor. I have the offensive player moving into a vertical defensive player who has maintained her path. I was ok with the no call live and ok with it here on film. I am not sure the defender did anything wrong except be bigger than the offensive player which caused the offensive player to bounce off of her when they came together. Again just my opinion. If it does make the video, it will be interesting to see what the powers that be think about it. Both the C from a good angle slightly behind and the L have a good look at the action of both players.

All good, except that isn't within the rights of a defender. Did she have LGP? No. Not even close. As such, she has no right to be moving at the time of contact. Even if she did have LGP, the movement, even if it was in an established path was such that the offensive player had head and shoulders past the defender. She also move towards the shooter in making contact.

It may be that the powers that be are OK with not making the call, but it will not be because it wasn't a foul (by rule).

To me this is two players who get to the same spot at the same time. It is not a block charge play. To me they come together legally at the same spot from two different positions and angles. If both get to that spot legally, there can be a collision with no foul. I do not have the defender moving into the offensive player. I have her moving perpendicularly towards the endline. The offensive player is headed to the basket. I understand you have the defender doing something wrong where I have two players in equal positions getting to the same spot at the same time from different positions and that is why I am ok with the no call. Both C and T were looking right at it and trail, while farther away, had an open look as well. Like I said, if it is part of the video, or if it makes the rounds at camps this summer, it will be interesting to see how the big dogs and coordinators see it.

A player having a right to a spot on the floor is more for stationary players. A player doesn’t have to have LGP to occupy a spot, but when defenders are moving then LGP is used to determine wether contact is legal or not.

There are some interesting contortions happening in here in order to justify a non-call.

Even acknowledging that calls are different in the final seconds, I can't see this as anything but a foul.

If we are talking about the last play before the foul at 3 seconds, the MSU player dribbled right to a defender that got to the ball before any contact. That is not a foul anytime I have been officiating and if I saw what I saw on video in my game, I would hope I would pass on that play as the officials did yesterday.

Peace

I believe you’re referring to the play in the championship game. This is the thread for the semifinal and we are discussing the no call before overtime.

You are right.

But if we are talking about the last play, I saw nothing obvious at all about that situation where I would call a foul. Again, that situation happens all the time in a Men's game and there is no foul called. Again the defender is 6'8 if I am not mistaken. She is going to defend most players differently.

BTW, I had this player when she was a high school player in a Nike Tournament in Chicago. She has gotten a lot tougher and I remember having a conversation with her after the game I had her about playing big. She was very soft in high school in my opinion at least when I saw her in my game. She plays much bigger than she did when I saw her too, but she still makes some silly foul mistakes IMO.

Peace

I mean, illegal contact sent a shooter to the floor and significantly impacted her ability to make the shot. I could sell a no-call if there was also a play on the ball, but it's all body contact on an offensive player who had beaten her defender.

So, you'll let a defender collide with a shooter because they came from "equal" positions? If so, and I apologize if this sounds too critical, your whole understanding of the rule is just fundamentally flawed. They are not in equal positions....one has the ball and that changes everything, guarding rules apply and there is nothing in guarding about equal positions. The equal positions concept has to do with players getting to a ball.

Camron lets jump the fence. Why did these officials pass on an obvious shooting foul?

Going to OT.

So if a defensive player (B1) is running up the court the ball-handler can just run up beside B1, create illegal contact, then get the benefit of a foul?

And if we want to talk about fouls that were missed that sent the game into OT, Louisville #23 clearly shoves a MSU player in the back before missing the put back. That was more of a foul than the contact on the shooter.

Not if I am on the play.

Peace

I am calling that a foul every time. Offensively player has the angle. Defense who is not legal moves into her during the shot.

Not what happened here. But somewhat, yes. The ball handler pretty much has the right to go where he/she likes. It is the defender's job to legally get in the path to stop them. If they can't get into the path, then they don't have a legal position. I may not grant a foul call of they are side-by-side and the dribbler cuts sideways to create contact but, in this play, the defender ran into the back of the dribbler/shooter as the dribble cut across the front of the defender's path. The shooter beat her to the spot and was fouled.

They are side by side through this entire play. Slow it down frame by frame. At the :24 second mark of the clip, the offensive player is actually behind the left leg of the defender and they are side to side. Both officials (C & L) have an angle on the play with a shooter on the ground and have no call. I happen to agree with them. The offense initiated the contact on a defender who beat her to a spot. I am not disagreeing time and score may have impacted the decision but like Rut and Raymond have said, I just don't see a foul here.

Sorry, your description of the play just does not match what is in the video. The defender wasn't even close to beating anyone to the spot. She was running full speed and got passed then ran into the shooter. Even if they got to the spot at the same time or even if the defender got there first, she simply did not do so legally. Who initiates contact is not a factor in the rules. The defender has to obtain their spot legally. The only thing that kept that from being a foul was the time and score.

The contact occurred on the back side of her right shoulder. Side by side isn’t legal. Legal needs to be facing the torso and both feet on the floor. B tries to jump to block the shot and she is not jumping from A and landing on A. Player A’s contact did not cause B be to land on spot B.
I don’t see OIC on this play. I see offense getting the angle to attack the rim and B cutting the angle off late.
I didn’t see the game possibly they were matching a call that happened late in the game that was similar.

I wondered about the ramifications of that had the put-back gone in the hoop. That blatant shove got her the chance for the put-back. Kantner right there as C and passed on both plays.

Dee wasn't working this game.

She only works the finals. :D

Tech - Good call. My only issue is that the player gets a tech for expressing frustration by slapping the floor and immediately gets T'd while the coach can run down the sideline screaming profanity in response to both calls and gets a pass. Not saying its a male-female thing, but clearly a player-coach distinction in terms of rope that I don't believe is a good look.

Last play - Normally I would lean foul here, even given time and score. HOWEVER, based on what had been no called involving both those players and others over the game and specifically the last 5 minutes, calling a foul there would have been inconsistent with the standard created by the crew over the course of the game involving contact at the rim and involving bigs. So I'm ok with the no call in that context.

Great point that has not been taken into consideration by anybody else's responses. I didn't see the game so I know I would have no idea how that no-call fit in with how the game was called overall.

Same for me...didn't see the game, just saw this play. If they'd been letting contact like that go all game, it would be hard to call that. But, I bet they called a lot less contact as fouls many times too.

Agree 100% on your comment about the Tech. Wish there was more accountability on the coaches for this behavior.

Looking only at that clip - 100% foul. Not knowing if this wasn't called throughout the game could change my mind.

You are correct. It was Mattingly. Got confused on who owned that pony tail.

Coaches are adults and running their team. Players are not on any level with me as an official and certainly not with that kind of display. And maybe there is some other element to this, but a woman made the original call and another woman called the T.

Peace

I do not put of with much nonsense from either coaches or players, but I definitely put up with much less nonsense from players than I will from a coach.

I agree coaches generally get more leeway than players. ie. I'm not going to have players disagreeing with calls vocally and visibly, where as in the heat of the moment I may not hear or notice a coach OR choose to put blinders on if its not ongoing or over the top.

In this case I just don't see it as player vs coach rope. I've got a participant who is gesturing their frustration visibly for the crowd so I get that: T. I've then got a coach running down the sideline visibly gesturing their frustration to the crowd while announcing to the crowd, my crew and the international viewing audience that my call is bu11 shi# repeatedly. IMO coach is well past 30 Shade's of Grey threshold (rope and blinders are put away) and that should be a T every time.

We all have the lines that we wish not to be crossed. It is possible that this would not even bring any attention to the officials considering where they are as it would others. You might just have a different line of demarcation. I did not see anything the coach did that was over the top. I expect a certain level of reaction to a play, but how long does it go or what is said? I have no idea what the coach said. I know a few years ago when they got to the title game against UConn, the Louisville coach got a T for complaining. So I am going to assume he did not go too far in the minds of the officials or he was so far away they were not paying that much attention at the moment. But a player slamming onto the floor in disgust is quite different.

Peace