NCAA Women UCONN V. DUKE

[williebfree]

14:16 remaining in 2nd half

UCONN player (Name escapes me) attempts shot block, pushes the elbow on the way to the ball, slaps the ball with hand and her forearm smacks the forearm of the shooter.

Male announcer: (UCONN player) is called on a questionable foul.

(Slow-mo replay starts and CLEARLY shows the foul)

Ann Meyer: Yes, three officials on the floor and only one whistled the foul.


Another example of clueless announcers.

[mplagrow]

It was also probably 'over-the-back' and 'reaching in' all rolled into one!

[Hawks Coach]

I have to agree with that one. I think it was outside the calling official's primary, but it was a clear foul and needed to be called.

It was strange, because Meyer commented on how she got the arm, then proceeded to question why only one official called it. I guess with three, you need a majority?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I guess with three, you need a majority?

Unless it's a Quaker school, and then they use consensus!

[DrakeM]

Wesley Dean made the call from "C".
Lisa Mattingly at Lead and Sally Bell at trail.
I think the call came from the right place.
And replay backed him up.
Contact occured on the side away from lead, Lisa would have been guessing.

[bigwhistle]

My only question for the part of the game that I saw was when the T was called on UCONN for an elbow in retaliation for a Duke girl fouling her....why did they use the POI for this? This would be a dead ball intentional contact T, which does not follow POI.

Am I wrong with this question?

[Bart Tyson]

sounds like the official did not call intentional T. Just called a dead ball foul, which is a T. So, since it is just a T, we have a false double invouling a T. We shoot the T and go to POI.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
sounds like the official did not call intentional T. Just called a dead ball foul, which is a T. So, since it is just a T, we have a false double invouling a T. We shoot the T and go to POI.

A dead ball contact T is by definition an intentional T

[williebfree]

Geno Auriemma was called for a technical after arguing a foul call against Taurasi.

THERE WERE NO PLAYER T's.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by williebfree
Geno Auriemma was called for a technical after arguing a foul call against Taurasi.

THERE WERE NO PLAYER T's.

Hmmmm....then why did the box score list 2 technical fouls...one of which was against a player?

[williebfree]

Originally posted by bigwhistle

Hmmmm....then why did the box score list 2 technical fouls...one of which was against a player?

I guess it depends where you look... Notice that ESPN.com list NO Techs were issued in their box score and then in the recap comment about the Auriemma T. ????

Box score
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/boxscore?gameId=230320150

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
My only question for the part of the game that I saw was when the T was called on UCONN for an elbow in retaliation for a Duke girl fouling her....why did they use the POI for this? This would be a dead ball intentional contact T, which does not follow POI.

You're correct, biggie. A few of us discussed this at length at our association meeting yesterday morning. I didn't see the game, so I don't know if the T was on the player or the coach. But if the T was for the elbow after the play was dead (which is what it sounds like to me), then they should have shot the personal FTs first, then the FTs for the intentional T (dead ball contact), then given the ball at midcourt to the team that shot the technical FTs. I hope the crew was not from the Big East -- again. . .

Chuck

[secondyear]

willie - there were two technical fouls on was on a player , and another on Geno.

I agree with Bart, it appears that the official who called the technical on the player called it a direct and they went with the POI, which would be the correct procedure.

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
You're correct, biggie. A few of us discussed this at length at our association meeting yesterday morning. I didn't see the game, so I don't know if the T was on the player or the coach. But if the T was for the elbow after the play was dead (which is what it sounds like to me), then they should have shot the personal FTs first, then the FTs for the intentional T (dead ball contact), then given the ball at midcourt to the team that shot the technical FTs. I hope the crew was not from the Big East -- again. . .

Chuck

Rule 10-14.6: After an intentional technical foul, the ball will be returned to play at the closest spot, rather than half court. Rationale: With this change, the ball will now be returned to play from the closest spot to the foul after all technical fouls. It is more consistent.

Chuck,
Is going to midcourt something new, or was that last year?
mick

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
Rule 10-14.6: After an intentional technical foul, the ball will be returned to play at the closest spot, rather than half court. Rationale: With this change, the ball will now be returned to play from the closest spot to the foul after all technical fouls. It is more consistent.

Chuck,
Is going to midcourt something new, or was that last year?

Darn punk, smart-aleck, kids. Make me go and actually read my rulebook. . . if I can find it. . . Ok, here it is. Blow the dust off it. . .

To be serious, mick, you must have kind of an old rule book. I even looked in last year's NCAA book, and the rule was the same last year as what I mentioned earlier. Intentional technical fouls (which are, by rule, dead ball non-flagrant contact fouls) are penalized by two FTs and possession at midcourt. The reference in the 2003 NCAA book is 10-14-1.

My confusion stems from the fact that the women still use the spot closest to where the foul occured for intentional T's. So in the game we're discussing, the officials were correct NOT to put the ball in at midcourt; however, they still should have given possession after the technical FTs to the team that was on the receiving end of the elbow.

Chuck