Was it really that bad?

[BillyMac]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1642635083856191500

Maybe it was Coach Mulkey's bright outfit that made her stand out like a sore thumb, but if she is on the court and accidentally comes into contact with me in my high school game, at the minimum, she'll get a written warning in the book for her action.

But granted, I know more about rocket surgery than I know about NCAA rules.

[BillyMac]

Lots of hand checking allowed by both teams (more noticeable by Caitlin Clark defenders, Clark retaliated and was called for two player control fouls).

We've done a good job of cleaning up hand checking in Connecticut high school basketball since the NFHS rule language changes and point of emphasis.

I guess that freedom of movement is not a priority in wimmen’s college basketball?

(Just kidding, knowing the disdain that some have for 28.5 female basketball.)

Of course I know more about brain science than I know about NCAA rules.

[BillyMac]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1642650038886170624

https://twitter.com/i/status/1642649994216833026

Angel Reese follows and taunts Caitlin Clark for eight seconds.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1640182237005004801

I know that Clark did it in the semifinals (I saw it and didn't like it), but Reese's taunt in the finals seems different, longer, targeted, mean spirited, and less enthusiastically spontaneous than Clark’s taunt.

As an official I may have missed Clark's short-lived semifinal taunt (if I saw it I would have addressed it), but the eight second final taunt in my high school game would have definitely gotten my attention and a technical foul.

Reese said that it was disrespectful for Clark to do it to sister SEC school South Carolina, I agree, but it was also disrespectful for Reese to do it to Clark.

At least Clark didn't follow around her South Carolina opponents for eight seconds and stick it in their face.

Of course I know more about brain surgery than I know about NCAA rules.

[JRutledge]

When players draw attention to themselves, especially on the biggest of stages, there is a chance that players might respond when they get the chance. Not the first time that has happened in sports. Seen it with Lebron James or Tariq Hill of the KC Chiefs or when teams go after a team dance or some gesture from the fans (Florida and Florida State come to mind). This is no different and could have been addressed better, but it wasn't.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is no different and could have been addressed better, but it wasn't.

Agree.

I will never, ever, be able to fully understand the "pressure cooker" situation of an NCAA Final Four official, but if this unsporting activity, by both Clark and especially by Reese, happened in my high school game, I hope that I would have the courage to address it.

This is my beloved game of basketball, not my son's beloved "sport" of professional wrestling.

[JRutledge]

What I will never understand, why is it in the Women's game you see actions you see nowhere else and it is hardly ever addressed. Mulkey can act a fool and no one gets in her chest and says, "Will you knock it off!!!" You hardly see them talk to her while she acts like a maniac. She almost touched and official yesterday and the officials appeared to do nothing at all. Don't touch me, I cannot touch you. It is either indifference or fear of what they might do or say.

In the Regional of this Tournament the SDSU coach went off after the officials made a great call during a loose ball. The SDSU coach could hardly react and he was T'd up. Then there was an officials basically addressing him after the T and you did not see another blow up in that game or one that matched the one where he got penalized. You never see what Mulkey does at the Men's side. At least not consistently.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... in the Women's game you see actions you see nowhere else and it is hardly ever addressed.

Sugar and spice and everything nice.

[SC Official]

I didn’t watch the entire game but did see Mulkey’s histrionics (on the court multiple times??) and Angel Reese’s clear taunting actions (too small, pointing at her ring finger while staring at Clark), both of which the crew did nothing about. Yet they got Iowa for a DOG and subsequent T on a technicality that probably doesn’t meet the spirit and intent of the rule.

Iowa coach definitely has a legitimate gripe on these plays.

I haven’t heard anyone in officiating or non-officiating spheres come close to suggesting that the officiating was at an acceptable level, much less in the biggest game in WBB history.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I talked to several women’s officials and they mentioned handchecks are called very tightly at the D1 level, and also very inconsistently.

If that’s true, that’s a shame. Multiple soft calls that you won’t see in NCAA-M, NBA, or the W.

Well then I blame the coaches, as they’re the ones who are giving that directive to the national coordinator. Maybe there will be some philosophical changes now given the outrage?

I’ve noticed in NCAA-W that they don’t talk players out of cheap handchecks or post fouls, something that is quite common and generally accepted in the men’s game (just look at Jeff Anderson).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I talked to several women’s officials and they mentioned handchecks are called very tightly at the D1 level, and also very inconsistently.

If that’s true, that’s a shame. Multiple soft calls that you won’t see in NCAA-M, NBA, or the W.

Women's basketball loves to tell everyone how pure they are in their application of certain rules. So I am pretty sure I have seen similar calls made at that level before that you can question would be called at other levels.

I say this pretty clearly, adjust. There is no reason to put your hand on ball handlers unless you want to make the official decide of that is a foul.

Peace

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I talked to several women’s officials and they mentioned handchecks are called very tightly at the D1 level, and also very inconsistently.

If that’s true, that’s a shame. Multiple soft calls that you won’t see in NCAA-M, NBA, or the W.

Prior to Covid I observed for a D1 Co ordinator on the women's side. I sat with her and she noted six "hand checks" that went uncalled. I thought may be one was a missed call. A couple other friends work for Jon Levinson. They tell me repeatedly that he fjnds about 8 a game they don't call. Yes, hand on for two dribbles the woman's game wants a whistle. Zero consideration is given to advantage / disadvantage

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I talked to several women’s officials and they mentioned handchecks are called very tightly at the D1 level, and also very inconsistently.

If that’s true, that’s a shame. Multiple soft calls that you won’t see in NCAA-M, NBA, or the W.

The rule on the Women's side is pretty clear--keep your hands off non-post ball handlers. There are no more inconsistent at enforcing their standards than NCAA-Men's officials, IMO.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

2023 NCAA-W National Championship plays of note

1Q
630 – Iowa #22 called for tripping (CC)
512 – potential defensive foul on LSU #55
511 – Iowa #25 called for offensive foul (appears to be CC)
328 – Iowa #25 called for defensive foul. Defender appears to be legal, seems like the Lead reacted to contact. Pain tolerance play. The first clear miss imo.
202 – Iowa #44 called for defensive foul. Same as foul at 328. Defender appears to be legal, seems like the Lead reacted to contact. Pain tolerance play.
123 – Iowa #14 called for handcheck. Very poor call imo, virtually no contact and zero affect on RSBQ. In fact the defender falls down on the play. If the Slot holds their whistle it’s an easy play on. Leads to bonus free throws for LSU.
58.1 – LSU #10 called for hit on arm. On replay #2 appears to swipe the ball.
52.4 – LSU #55 called for a HORRIFIC hand check. Total east-west movement, no RSBQ affected, defenders 2nd foul, right after questionable foul six seconds earlier. Leads to free throws.
5.1 – Iowa #45 called for a travel that is clearly wrong imo.

That’s six IC in the 1Q, five in the last 2:02. Almost impossible for any crew to survive that.

At 58.1, the ball clearly went off the foot or knee of the Iowa player. If you think it is a foul, call the foul. But she was far away making that call. I am surprised the lead did not see that and help her out. Unless it was one of those, "I did not call the foul, but gave them the out of bounds" kind of situations.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

"I did not call the foul, but gave them the out of bounds" kind of situations.

That's an ancient times philosophy. We all did that (actually secretly trained to do so) twenty-five, thirty, forty years ago, where both coaches (and players) walked away "winking" and somewhat satisfied.

I stopped doing that when everybody's grandmother sitting in the bleachers had access to a high definition video camera with their cell phones.

Now I decide to call the foul, or not call the foul, based on what I see, intent and purpose, advantage-disadvantage, my previous calls in the game, and consistency between me and my partner.

I no longer call a make-up, make-believe, phantom out of bounds call.

If I pass on the foul, I'm always calling out of bounds on the team that touched it last, as James Naismith intended.

Sure one coach is pissed, but that's why we get paid the big bucks, to make such tough decisions.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Lead should have helped her out? How? Are you suggesting Lead go to Trail and say “hey I know this is the biggest game you and I have ever worked but you need to take that foul back”? No way lol.

The ball was not in the primary of the Lead? So if it clearly went off her foot, she should have had some idea for sure. But if she did not see it, then nothing you can do. But the players were just out of the lane. And Women's extends the Lead's coverage to the sideline too. Should have been wider too.

Peace