Texas-Maryland Womens (Video)
 

Would anyone whack the Maryland coach for what she did at 15:28 second half? Is there a foul on the previous action starting at 15:30?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/obJXHKODKhc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I probably wouldn't.

I might not have had anything on the first action which caused the Md player to go to the floor. But, when that same Texas player dove on the Md player on the floor......I would think that's what she's complaining about, and I'd like to think I'd put air in my whistle there.

Would be interesting to have seen a wider picture. I'm thinking that the new Lead would be the one to see and call this, but may have been focused elsewhere. Anything T-worthy had ended by the time the held ball was called so I can see why the T and C missed it.

Focusing only on the coach, I would have a T.

Agree with this about hopefully having a whistle for the dive on top of the player, although I don't think that's what the coach was complaining about. She is already jumping up and down outside the coaches box before the defender dives onto her player.

First contact should have been a foul by NCAA-W POE. C had a good look at it but didn't call it. If it had been called, there would be no need to worry about the Coach.

A1 loses her balance and falls on her own. B1 didn't dive on top of A1. So I have nothing but a held ball like the officials did.

MD coach would get a "calm down" from me if I'm the new Lead. But if that's all she's done the entire game I'm not seeing a T for this.

I'm not so sure there was much contact made by the Texas player diving for the loose ball. Looks like there was leg contact, but definitely not torso or full body contact. The MD player 'dove on' pops right up to her feet by the time a held ball is called. No way she gets up that quick if she was dove on, as we all normally would expect that action to look like.

Not sure on whacking the MD coach. Would like to think the new L would have his partners' backs on that one, since both have a lot of on-ball activity and players to deal with. She should at least be talked to and perhaps warned.

BTW, I thought it was a good no-call. Dribbler initiated the contact causing her to go down.

Appears to me that the Texas defender bumped the dribbler. When she falls, I'm grabbing that foul.

B player doesn't have LGP. Even if A initiates the contact, it's a B foul.

And that kind of contact on the dribbler is a POE in NCAA-W games this year. Should have been called.

Yes, easy block call. There was nothing legal about the defenders position.

99 out of 100 officials are going to make that call....simple block.

I will admit that in a HS game I'm probably waiting to see if RSBQ is affected in a meaningful way before putting air in my whistle.

Agreed.

It looks to me the second time I saw this, that the ball handler was falling and the defender was getting out of the way.

I would like to see more to completely dismiss the "dive" onto the ball handler. But I can see for sure why nothing was called.

Peace

I have a foul on the initial defender. The defender never had LGP and is just silly to try and defend like that. If I pass on that, I would have a foul on the defender jumping on top of the other player.

I would whack the coach for that stutter-step down the sideline combined with the arm movement. If I missed that, I would whack the coach for coming out of her huddle to yell and point at the officials again.

The coach also threw a fit with 6:00 left in the second half and the game was close the rest of the way so I assume none of the officials took care of the problem.

100% a foul by the Texas defender. This illegal contact causes the dribbler to go to the floor and lose possession of the ball.
100% a technical foul by the Maryland coach for jumping up and down and hollering.

Are NCAAW officials neutered? This has to be one of the easiest Ts on a coach that is possible.

The contact on the BH/D is one of the plays specifically identified in our (NCAAW) preseason videos that we're supposed to call. I'm surprised no one put a whistle on it. When the C didn't get it the L and T probably figured there hand't been any illegal contact.

And yes, Brenda Freese needed to get a T for going berserk and leaving the coaching box to do so. What she did was identified in last year's preseason video as conduct that must be penalized.



You mean the way NCAAM's officials hand out Ts to coaches every time they lose it on the sidelines?

Seriously?

Are you off your meds again? You make a valid argument for something and then end your post by slamming an entire group of people based on one 20 second clip...smdh.

Well is it possible that the official felt that the ball handler was falling on their own? I keep reading people say, "That kind of contact needs to be called" but if the BH is falling on their own, that contact was not special or contributed to the player falling. After all, they did pass on a foul. That might have been the reasoning even if you or others disagree.

Right or wrong, NCAAM's side does give out more Ts and high profile situations. For some reason you see coaches on the NCAAW's side has coaches throwing and stomping and nothing is done. And it is much more than a 20 second clip to make that determination. I have some ideas why, but then again that will offend people here, so why bother. ;)

Peace

I was at the game sitting across from the benches looking at it from almost directly behind the C. 6 rows up. I was there with two other NCAA-W officials. Watching it live, all of us thought the dribbler had started to lose the ball and started to fall on her own. We were all ok with the no call. That being said, all three of us thought Brenda Frese deserved the T when she walked away from her team and back toward the play. FWIW, during the timeout interval, the R talked to her and she shook her head ok and walked away.

There are more coaches on the men's side who act like a Cronin or a Kryzewhooski than there are on the women's side...so of course there are more T's there.

Did this Coach deserve a T? Yep...and there were probably 3 or 4 games last week where a Men's coach deserved a T but didn't get one.

I just don't see that from the video, but I appreciate the "I was there" account. Seriously. I'll go back and look at it again.

FWIW I'm an alum and big fan of the woman's program at Maryland.

I like the held ball call.

I think the UMD player is losing her balance on her own and I don't have a foul on that or when the Texas player goes to the floor for the tie up either.

If she was losing her balance, it was because she was reacting to a defender cutting her off...anticipating/preparing the contact which did occur. I don't see that as a reason to ignore the contact by the defender. If not for the defender coming in like that, there wouldn't have been anything to talk about.

You are right, that the ball handler did try to shield the ball and fell down. The question was that caused by the contact by the defender or the BH's adjustment caused the BH to fall. I think the latter applied here. And the official on the play had a decent angle. It is not about ignoring anything, we just disagree which one was a result before the other. After all that is why there is a rule for incidental contact. Not all contact is a foul.

Peace

What the defender did was just silly. You don't guard like that. That's not LGP. Unless the dribbler runs into the back of a defender to try to get a call, I am calling this contact every time.

I think this is a dangerous line of thinking. To apply it to another situation say a shooter is going up with a shot and loses control of the ball on their own as they lose focus anticipating contact from an approaching defender. The defender then makes slight contact on the arm with the player who has already lost control of the ball. This contact is incidental and I'm not calling the foul. Would you award 2 shots in this situation? (I know it's hard to deal in hypotheticals but humor me)

IMO the same applies here. It does not really matter why the ball handler went down without contact b/c she did. And I think the slight contact by the defender here with a ball handler who had already lost her balance is incidental.


So now we are penalizing the defense for being silly? Got it.

I did not say that. I am penalizing the defense for contact causing the dribbler to go down. The contact is not incidental because the defender never established Legal Guarding Position, and as such is liable for the contact in this situation.

My comment still stands: it was silly for the defender to put herself in that position.

We do not call fouls based on the evaluation or rating of their defense. They might have felt they were going to foul, but the BH decided to adjust and no one was there.

Peace

A1 was falling on her own. As she was falling she then came in contact with the defender. I personally am not go to penalize the defender for that.

What's the relationship between LGP and incidental contact? Your argument does not make sense to me?

Are you saying that when there is incidental contact you call it a foul if the defender doesn't have LGP. Because by rule, contact that is incidental is not a foul. Period.

I do. It's called "refereeing the defense".

You comment is inane. We literally call fouls based on our evaluation of legal/illegal defense.

Agree...i didn't mean to imply I thought it was not a foul, just describing the actions.

There was contact and it was illegal contact. A1 may have been a little off balance on her own but the defense finished the job. I previously said I had a block on this without hesitation.

Not saying this couldn't be incidental contact in some eyes (I have a foul), but as every official should understand from a cursory reading of the rulebook is that the onus is on the defender to establish and maintain Legal Guarding Position if they don't want to be called for a foul.

That really isn't what I was saying. She went down due to the illegal contact. I was just describing why she appeared to be off balance, not that she fell on her own.

That's all well and good. I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind saying the contact isn't incidental because LGP wasn't established.

Got it. We'll just agree to disagree. I think she went down because she lost her balance on her own. The anticipation of contact very well may be the reason she lost her balance on her own but IMO the contact itself did not.

OK, and if you look at the defender, the defender did not cause any contact. The contact that occurred appeared to be because the defender is falling already. And if you watch the defender, that is relatively obvious and probably why there was no call in the first place.

Peace

I'm not saying there can't be incidental just because the defender does not have LGP, I am saying the contact in this play is not incidental due to contact being caused by the defender who was not in LGP. I know the rule, calling this a foul is a judgement call.

Huh? The defender caused all the contact. The defender tried to cut off the dribbler and ran obliquely into the dribblers path, while never having established Legal Guarding Position. In my judgement, that is a foul.

Whatever you say. I think the defender did not cause anything but force the BH to adjust. As I said before the BH looks like they were overcompensating because the defender was in their way and fell down. I am not asking for your agreement. And this is why it is called judgment and why we all get paid the big bucks to make these calls or decisions. I am just telling you what I saw when I watched the video. Nothing you have said has changed my original view of the play.

Peace

I agree with this. The more off-balance she - or anyone - is, the less contact they'll need to fall down. The fact the defender didn't have LGP doesn't help her (the defender's) cause in my eyes. Plus, when I see plays like this the scenario from the preseason video always pops into my head.

You are assuming the officials saw the coach's actions and made a decision to not call a technical. There are some actions we don't observe because we are zeroing in on a potential problem area. This is the case with this play with players going to the ground. Unless we start going to the monitor to review all actions on the sideline it is not always "easy" to see the actions (jumping, wave offs, etc) from coaches, bench personnel, fans, etc during live play.

You don't think that the new Lead saw the coach throw her tantrum?

walt said the R talked to the coach during the timeout so yes, I would say the crew definitely knew the coach did something.

She came out to the floor and waved him over. The R went over to her and she calmly pointed down the floor toward where the play occurred. The R is the Old Lead/New Trail in the video. They talked. She nodded. Gave him the tap on the back and walked away with no other reaction. She may not have liked the explanation but she let it go. The crew looked like they were waiting to talk to her anyway during the timeout and as soon as she made her move, the R made his.