I was watching the game but I don’t have it on tape to review. In real time it appeared to be a charge.

The B1 had time to stop, set, and put her arms down in front of herself, as a man would do, to protect herself. Contact took place about 1 or 2 feet in from the lane line and a good 6 feet from the line the backboard would draw through the lane. Big problem with the call that was missed by the announcers was that L reached out of his area to call it. L was on the weak side. In fact, C who had a good angle on the play and whose area it was in signaled a charge. Why did they go with the block? The only reason I can see is that L was table side and moved to make the signal before C could say anything.

The slow motion replay clearly showed that B1 had stopped and was cringing to absorb the hit before contact was made.

This is kind of off topic, but it fits with how announcers and fans see the game. I had a weekend tournament a couple of weeks ago and I was talking to a woman I know about her son's team and the tournaments they had played. She mentioned that she thought some of the high school kids that officiate games do a better job than the licesened officials. I told her she might think that because they would call the game from a fan's perspecetive, not from a rulesbook perspective. She didn't like that much but I thought it was a pretty accurate point and got a chuckle out of it

Good observation RecRef ...I saw the same thing. I think most people saw the C signaling for a Team Control Foul (using my proper rules vocab) ... Minn bench was clapping, Minn radio announcer (be it he's a homer) thought they were going the other way, etc.

In this situation, I have been taught to let whoever's primary it is take the call....or come together if you both have signaled after a double whistle. As an L this year, I tried to be very patient on the whistle ...especially on calling something on the weak side

Not that the announcer's know what's what...
 

But a lot of folks up here in MN thought the officiating was a little weak last night. Tough game to call, but a few weak reaches in the backcourt on McCarville and Company and a bad 4th foul on McCarville when she took a charge nicely had folks upset. I'm not saying I would have done a better job, but they did miss a few last night. But, all in all, I think the Gopher faithful are amazed to be watching a Final Four with their team in it.

I saw the 4th foul on McCarville- live and in memorex. Both times I thought that she leaned sideways after the shooter left her feet. Iow, good call by the official. But I'm not a fan, so whatinthe hell do I know?

Is "reaching" a foul in Minnesota?

I'm not really a fan either
 

I thought she took the charge in the chest without leaning. Yes, reaching is a foul in Minnesota. Like if you reach for someone's beer -- you'll get called everytime. You're loyalty to all officials is admirable.

In this case, it's not a matter at all of me being loyal to officials. That's got nothing to do with it. It's got nothing to do with you as an official, either. It's basically just a matter of me personally not caring at any time what fans think. And if they're Minnesota fans or Duke fans,hey, who really cares? If other officials, including you, want to honestly come here and critique officials, that's fine with me. I'll do that myself. If the knowledgeable coaches that post here want to do the same thing, that's fine with me too. They've earned our respect with their rules knowledge and understanding of the game. Fans, however, do <b>not</b> have the necessary knowledge to give an honest critique of officials. The only critique they ever seem to give is "the officials were bad", whateverthehell that means. All they really want is the officials to give them their fair share of the calls, which usually works out to about 80% in their minds.

All your post basically said to me was that Minnesota fans thought the refereeing was bad. All my post basically said to you was "who cares what the Minnesota fans think?"

FWIW my call would have been PC on that play. I believe that the defender got to the spot on the floor before the shooter jumped. I also don't think any leaning took place, but if it did who cares? She is not expected to be a statue. I'd only have a problem with the leaning if it clearly changed the frame of her body position. I don't believe that can be argued on this play.

I already proved you wrong. I argued it.

correctly argued... argued with any merit... ;)

Ah, you're a cunning linguist. :D

Careful, you don't want to say this too fast.:D