Louisville-California (W) block charge clip

[pizanno]

I'm not convinced the kicking action is directed towards the player. The second replay angle shows #13 pound the floor with right fist at same time her leg straightens/kicks. She's also looking in a direction away from offensive player during and after the kick.

Celebratory actions can sometimes lead to incidental or unintended contact. Just ask Danny Crawford

[Adam]

Originally Posted by pizanno

I'm not convinced the kicking action is directed towards the player. The second replay angle shows #13 pound the floor with right fist at same time her leg straightens/kicks. She's also looking in a direction away from offensive player during and after the kick.

Celebratory actions can sometimes lead to incidental or unintended contact. Just ask Danny Crawford

I disagree. Love the PC call, but this knee kick wasn't celebratory. Whistle that, and it stops.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by pizanno

I'm not convinced the kicking action is directed towards the player. The second replay angle shows #13 pound the floor with right fist at same time her leg straightens/kicks. She's also looking in a direction away from offensive player during and after the kick.

Celebratory actions can sometimes lead to incidental or unintended contact. Just ask Danny Crawford

After seeing the conduct of Louisville players vs. Baylor and Cal they get ZERO benefit of the doubt from me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

after seeing the conduct of louisville players vs. Baylor and cal they get zero benefit of the doubt from me.

+1

[pizanno]

Ok, I can accept being in the minority opinion on the T...after a multiple defender, dual area, RA vicinity, pass-crash play like this, I know I wouldn't have the awareness to say with certainty what her intent was.

But, when the Louisville or CAL coach asks what she did to earn the T, you say what?

"In my opinion she intended to kick her"?

Then CAL coach asks, isn't that 'fighting' by rule?

Now what?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by pizanno

Ok, I can accept being in the minority opinion on the T...after a multiple defender, dual area, RA vicinity, pass-crash play like this, I know I wouldn't have the awareness to say with certainty what her intent was.

But, when the Louisville or CAL coach asks what she did to earn the T, you say what?

"In my opinion she intended to kick her"?

Then CAL coach asks, isn't that 'fighting' by rule?

Now what?

"If she would have connected or a skirmish ensued we would get her for fighting, but since neither happened we're only getting her for an unsporting T"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"If she would have connected or a skirmish ensued we would get her for fighting, but since neither happened we're only getting her for an unsporting T"

yep, pretty simple, actually, since most coaches aren't going to ask for that. The ones that do know the answer ahead of time anyway, they're just trying to see what they can get away with.

[pizanno]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"If she would have connected or a skirmish ensued we would get her for fighting..."

4-26 Art. 2. A fight is a confrontation involving one or more players, coaches or other team personnel wherein (but not limited to) a fist, hand, arm, foot, knee or leg is used to combatively strike the other individual.

Art. 3. When during a confrontation, an individual attempts to strike another individual with any of the actions defined in Art. 2, whether there is contact is irrelevant. The perpetrator shall be deemed to have been involved in a fight.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"...but since neither happened we're only getting her for an unsporting T"

This is the part I especially like. I don't think we consider the option of unsporting T (whether there was contact or not) often enough. Not all contact is a foul, even during deal ball.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by pizanno

4-26 Art. 2. A fight is a confrontation involving one or more players, coaches or other team personnel wherein (but not limited to) a fist, hand, arm, foot, knee or leg is used to combatively strike the other individual.

Art. 3. When during a confrontation, an individual attempts to strike another individual with any of the actions defined in Art. 2, whether there is contact is irrelevant. The perpetrator shall be deemed to have been involved in a fight.





This is the part I especially like. I don't think we consider the option of unsporting T (whether there was contact or not) often enough. Not all contact is a foul, even during deal ball.

There really isn't a confrontation here. Had that kick landed, there probably would have been a confrontation, and then the fighting stuff would kick in. In this case - as others have said - we should have had a PC followed by a T.

[maroonx]

She did not slide over when dribbler was in the air. Thats clear. Easy call. Charge it