NCAAW Baylor/UConn

[Matt S.]

I'm fairly certain my NCAA-W supervisors would want me to call that a foul. In real time, the first time I'm seeing that video I have a block on #3 for walking under the shooter. By stepping forward, she did not maintain LGP and failed to give the shooter a space to land - that's my explanation to a coach.

The whole 'what happens up top' is not part of any women's pregame discussion I've ever had... happy to hear dissenting opinions.

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Billy, love to hear your opinion on the play and the mechanics of the officials.

If not posting about the play, could you at least put "OFF-TOPIC" in the title of your posts so some of us know to skip it?

Thanks.

Best thread in post.

BM - This one of the best threads we have had in the past year. There is a lot of philosophy being thrown around. Each point is valid. But you posting 5 times in a row gets annoying. You may think it is humorous but it makes a lot of the threads difficult to read.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Protect does not mean to call every single instance of contact a foul. Never did. It means to stay with the the airborne shooter and watch for illegal contact that creates an defensive advantage, or an offensive disadvantage, as well considering landing spot safety concerns. It also means that for a second, or two, to let your partner(s) worry about the rebounding fouls.

In Carrington's case, she hadn't even released the ball when she got pushed, certainly a illegal disadvantage for an airborne shooter.

We see plays like this not called all the time. Why is this so special about the airborne shooter? We see airborne shooters get their shot blocked and fall with some contact and nothing happens. No one makes a fuss about it. But because this is a high profile situation, everyone now wants to go to the shooter must be protected at all cost. Just find it funny how I watch games, show plays and see how the game is called much of the time and now this is a bridge too far.

Just funny to me. This is basically a call if was in the Men's game no one would care. IJS

Peace

[LRZ]

I really wish someone--a moderator?--would put a place a limit on a member's daily posts, the number of times a poster can post in any given thread, and a ban on the use of non-relevant graphics.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We see plays like this not called all the time. Why is this so special about the airborne shooter? We see airborne shooters get their shot blocked and fall with some contact and nothing happens. No one makes a fuss about it. But because this is a high profile situation, everyone now wants to go to the shooter must be protected at all cost. Just find it funny how I watch games, show plays and see how the game is called much of the time and now this is a bridge too far.

Just funny to me. This is basically a call if was in the Men's game no one would care. IJS

Peace

My opinion about this play would be the same if were a Men's game. I've seen similar end-of-game situations discussed in clinics and camps I've attended over the years.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My opinion about this play would be the same if were a Men's game. I've seen similar end-of-game situations discussed in clinics and camps I've attended over the years.

Been to many clinics where plays like that was discussed and told to allow the bigger players to be big. I was told personally about not putting fouls on bigger players even if there is a little contact.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Again, this isn't one of those plays where the contact is after the shot is released and the question becomes whether, or not, the contact put the safe landing of the airborne shooter at risk, and not a question of whether, or not, the contact affected the trajectory of the shot. This isn't one of those plays.

In this case, Carrington hadn't even released the ball when she got pushed, she still had the ball in her hands, certainly an illegal disadvantage for an airborne shooter, or any shooter. In fact, it would still be an illegal disadvantage is she wasn't an airborne shooter (which she was) and was a "grounded" shooter (which she wasn't).

Airborne, or not, Carrington was shooting the ball when she got pushed. Call it "in the act" if one wishes, but she was shooting the ball and got "body pushed", and the trajectory of her shot was negatively impacted.

Sure, she had no business attacking two taller defenders with open teammates in the most important play of her college career, and I don't know if Kim Mulkey drew up that play in the manner in which it was executed, but that's still a foul, and unfortunately for Baylor, two of the three officials most likely to make this call didn't get a good look (straight lined, and didn't rotate).

When I say that she went against bigger players, it is without question a chance that the bigger players will contact you and even knock you down. So again the ball was contacted before anybody contact and 4-27 still applies when you have a blocked shot when the ball was touched first.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Been to many clinics where plays like that was discussed and told to allow the bigger players to be big. I was told personally about not putting fouls on bigger players even if there is a little contact.

Peace

Then it's a regional thing. But it's definitely not "it wouldn't be called in a Men's game" thing because I've heard and talked with plenty of supervisors and NBA/D1 officials who would say to put a whistle on this play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Then it's a regional thing. But it's definitely not "it wouldn't be called in a Men's game" thing because I've heard and talked with plenty of supervisors and NBA/D1 officials who would say to put a whistle on this play.

It might very well be. That is certainly a possible explanation, but when I talked with officials on both high school and college experience (mostly off-line) there was much more talk about why this is not a foul.

So I guess this is a foul too?



Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the ball was contacted before anybody contact and 4-27 still applies when you have a blocked shot when the ball was touched first ...

The ball was certainly touched first, but she still had the ball in her hands (the touch didn't dislodge the ball) when she got pushed. This is not one of those plays where the shot is released and then the ball is blocked and then the contact occurs after the release such that the contact doesn't affect the trajectory of the shot. This is not one of those plays.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The ball was certainly touched first, but she still had the ball in her hands when she got pushed. This in not one of those plays where the shot is released and then the ball is blocked and then the contact occurs after the release such that the contact doesn't affect the trajectory of the shot. This is not one of those plays.

I have preached this philosophy for years. Ball first, then unless the contact is unnecessary or not apart of the original play, incidental.

You can disagree, I stand by my position on this. All contact is not a foul or illegal, that is in the rules too.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Been to many clinics ... told personally about not putting fouls on bigger players even if there is a little contact.

Believe you. Key word: Little.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The ball was certainly touched first, but she still had the ball in her hands (the touch didn't dislodge the ball) when she got pushed. This is not one of those plays where the shot is released and then the ball is blocked and then the contact occurs after the release such that the contact doesn't affect the trajectory of the shot. This is not one of those plays.

Agree with this point. The shooter withstood the ball contact and continued to shoot after that. The only way ball contact first is not a foul is when that ball contact dislodges the ball. If the shooter plays through that, subsequent contact is independent of the ball contact.

[Raymond]

I've seen 3 plays so far tonight in the Men's final with 17 minutes still to play where defenders got all ball on blocked shots and were called for fouls. Nowhere close to the contact in OP''s play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I've seen 3 plays so far tonight in the Men's final with 17 minutes still to play where defenders got all ball on blocked shots and were called for fouls. Nowhere close to the contact in OP''s play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Were the fouls because of body contact or because they felt the blocks were with the arm or wrist? The ones I saw it was debatable if they got the ball first at all. I will admit I did not see blocks with body contact.

Peace