The CardBoard
OT: Baylor loses! - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: Baylor loses! (/thread-5011.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Yellowlab - 04-01-2013

(04-01-2013, 07:14 AM)garvin link Wrote:The only game that I saw, sort of, between Stanford and a Baylor team with Griner was the one early this season in Hawaii -- and that was on a grainy Internet feed of a primitive closed-circuit telecast. We were certainly being physical with her (as they were with Chiney), but I couldn't say with any authority whether any lines were crossed on either side. I don't think either coach complained afterward.

We were at that game and I can state with a high degree of confidence that Ruef was physical, but not dirty, while defending Griner.  She simply wouldn't let her establish position down low.  When she got the ball a second big doubled quickly and Griner gave the ball up.  Baylor scored some easy baskets as a result, but the over all defense was effective.  We were surprised that Ruef got the start, let alone the defensive assigment, but she came up big time.  Just incidentally, I thought that game was Taylor's coming out, party and that she was primed for a big year.  It didn't play out that way.

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Yellowlab - 04-01-2013

(04-01-2013, 07:14 AM)garvin link Wrote:The only game that I saw, sort of, between Stanford and a Baylor team with Griner was the one early this season in Hawaii -- and that was on a grainy Internet feed of a primitive closed-circuit telecast. We were certainly being physical with her (as they were with Chiney), but I couldn't say with any authority whether any lines were crossed on either side. I don't think either coach complained afterward.

We were at that game and I can state with a high degree of confidence that Ruef was physical, but not dirty, while defending Griner.  She simply wouldn't let her establish position down low.  When she got the ball a second big doubled quickly and Griner gave the ball up.  Baylor scored some easy baskets as a result, but the over all defense was effective.  We were surprised that Ruef got the start, let alone the defensive assigment, but she came up big time.  Just incidentally, I thought that game was Taylor's coming out, party and that she was primed for a big year.  It didn't play out that way.

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Griffins78 - 04-01-2013

Louisville players definitely fought for arm position with Griner - "hacking" her at times and other times swiping at the ball when she had it and probably hitting her arms. Some of those were called and some weren't. I think Louisville's primary tactic was getting lots of feet close around Griner and making it difficult for her to move. Otherwise, I didn't think what Louisville was illegal or harsh.

On the other hand, we have had teams that have physically shoved, pushed, pulled, grabbed, etc. (all fouls) and when they get away with it - they do it with impunity and worse than what Baylor saw. I thought the LSU player guarding Clarendon for Cal continuously fouled her throughout the game and it wasn't called -- grabbing, shoving, pushing, etc. to keep Clarendon from getting the ball or from moving. Much more severe and constant than what happened to Griner.

Some of the highlights ESPN showed were of Louisville players reacting to Griner grabbing their arm and trying to pull them down. So it looked bad on the Louisville player but no mention was made about what Griner did to initiate it. They showed Shoni Schimmel get into Griner's face (more like her chest) and jaw-bone after making an amazing no look, backwards alley-oop off the backboard over Griner. Baylor called for a technical foul for taunting but Shoni just had Brittney knock her down and it seemed like Brittney walked over her while she was on the ground.

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Griffins78 - 04-01-2013

Louisville players definitely fought for arm position with Griner - "hacking" her at times and other times swiping at the ball when she had it and probably hitting her arms. Some of those were called and some weren't. I think Louisville's primary tactic was getting lots of feet close around Griner and making it difficult for her to move. Otherwise, I didn't think what Louisville was illegal or harsh.

On the other hand, we have had teams that have physically shoved, pushed, pulled, grabbed, etc. (all fouls) and when they get away with it - they do it with impunity and worse than what Baylor saw. I thought the LSU player guarding Clarendon for Cal continuously fouled her throughout the game and it wasn't called -- grabbing, shoving, pushing, etc. to keep Clarendon from getting the ball or from moving. Much more severe and constant than what happened to Griner.

Some of the highlights ESPN showed were of Louisville players reacting to Griner grabbing their arm and trying to pull them down. So it looked bad on the Louisville player but no mention was made about what Griner did to initiate it. They showed Shoni Schimmel get into Griner's face (more like her chest) and jaw-bone after making an amazing no look, backwards alley-oop off the backboard over Griner. Baylor called for a technical foul for taunting but Shoni just had Brittney knock her down and it seemed like Brittney walked over her while she was on the ground.

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Viking_Guy - 04-01-2013

One other thought on this-

I've always thought that, with respect to both the Stanford men under Monty and the Stanford women under Tara, that the way officiating changed in the NCAA tournament was always to the Cardinal's detriment.  Specifically, as the games go on, fewer and fewer fouls are called in "normal" situations - people fighting for position in the post, fighting for the rebound (does over the back even exist any more?) and bodying up by "pressing" defenders, in both full court and half court defenses (I still remember Kelley Suminski getting body-checked in a double team at halfcourt and getting called for over and back at the end of a Tennessee game).  What is called is clutching and grabbing on drives to the hoop, and the horrifically officiated block/charge continuum.  Stanford, mostly featuring teams of jump shooters and post players (for either coaching or recruiting reasons, as we can hash over ad nauseum), becomes progressively less effective as more contact is allowed to disrupt their offensive sets and bang on the post players.  My thought has always been that officials like the fouls to be really neat - one player fouling, one player being fouled, instead of the scrum that the lane becomes when Chiney or Griner is trying to operate inside; if three people foul one player, on whom is the foul called?  It confuzzles them.  Rebounding and posting up fouls trend very quickly down.

But it's the block/charge thing that's really got me frustrated.  Two examples, one each way, from the Baylor/Louisville game are illustrative.

The first is the more famous - the collapsing Cardinal call on Nae Nae Hayden with 16 seconds left in the game, that drew the tantrum that should've earned Mulkey a technical foul (especially given the earlier one on Walz).  College basketball is really headed the way of the NBA, which is following the path blazed by soccer, of "embellishment" - in this case, leaning in to gain glancing contact and then flying backwards as if shot (I could call this the Augustus play, after the charge she drew on Candice in the Elite Eight by sticking her arms crossed out in front of her away from her body and into the path of Wiggins' last step, then flopping over).  At some point, there has to be some kind of punishment for the acting; I posted earlier this year about Brittany Boyd snapping her head back as a player swung her arms up and over; the offensive foul was called, and they reviewed it for a flagrant, only to discover that at no point had the offensive player's arms come within two inches of contacting Boyd.  It's also one of the characteristics I really dislike about Aaron Bright's game.

But the second to me is more detrimental - the call on Bria Smith with Louisville up 78-72 and two minutes left, that precipitated the technical foul on Walz.  Smith split two players and started to take off, and a non-Griner Baylor defender (I think it may have been Madden) stepped outside the circle and came to a stop in her path, then collapsed.  Now, the way I remember it, you were supposed to allow room for a player in the air to come down.  Smith was already leaving her feet and the defender was still moving.  I think what has happened is that the restricted circle, either as yet another consideration for the ref or as a crutch, has led to referees calling the player set if she is still AT THE TIME OF CONTACT - not when the offensive player leaves the ground. 

So not only are defenders allowed to clutch and grab on the perimeter, but if a player does drive inside to take advantage of that overplaying, all a secondary defender has to do is get her feet out of the circle and come to a stop before the offensive player does, and then preferably theatrically go down in a heap.  More often than not, it appears, the charge will be called.

Your mileage may vary.  But I've noticed the proportion of charge to block calls climbing steadily, and increasing in absolute numbers, as teams adapt to this trend in officiating.

VG




Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Viking_Guy - 04-01-2013

One other thought on this-

I've always thought that, with respect to both the Stanford men under Monty and the Stanford women under Tara, that the way officiating changed in the NCAA tournament was always to the Cardinal's detriment.  Specifically, as the games go on, fewer and fewer fouls are called in "normal" situations - people fighting for position in the post, fighting for the rebound (does over the back even exist any more?) and bodying up by "pressing" defenders, in both full court and half court defenses (I still remember Kelley Suminski getting body-checked in a double team at halfcourt and getting called for over and back at the end of a Tennessee game).  What is called is clutching and grabbing on drives to the hoop, and the horrifically officiated block/charge continuum.  Stanford, mostly featuring teams of jump shooters and post players (for either coaching or recruiting reasons, as we can hash over ad nauseum), becomes progressively less effective as more contact is allowed to disrupt their offensive sets and bang on the post players.  My thought has always been that officials like the fouls to be really neat - one player fouling, one player being fouled, instead of the scrum that the lane becomes when Chiney or Griner is trying to operate inside; if three people foul one player, on whom is the foul called?  It confuzzles them.  Rebounding and posting up fouls trend very quickly down.

But it's the block/charge thing that's really got me frustrated.  Two examples, one each way, from the Baylor/Louisville game are illustrative.

The first is the more famous - the collapsing Cardinal call on Nae Nae Hayden with 16 seconds left in the game, that drew the tantrum that should've earned Mulkey a technical foul (especially given the earlier one on Walz).  College basketball is really headed the way of the NBA, which is following the path blazed by soccer, of "embellishment" - in this case, leaning in to gain glancing contact and then flying backwards as if shot (I could call this the Augustus play, after the charge she drew on Candice in the Elite Eight by sticking her arms crossed out in front of her away from her body and into the path of Wiggins' last step, then flopping over).  At some point, there has to be some kind of punishment for the acting; I posted earlier this year about Brittany Boyd snapping her head back as a player swung her arms up and over; the offensive foul was called, and they reviewed it for a flagrant, only to discover that at no point had the offensive player's arms come within two inches of contacting Boyd.  It's also one of the characteristics I really dislike about Aaron Bright's game.

But the second to me is more detrimental - the call on Bria Smith with Louisville up 78-72 and two minutes left, that precipitated the technical foul on Walz.  Smith split two players and started to take off, and a non-Griner Baylor defender (I think it may have been Madden) stepped outside the circle and came to a stop in her path, then collapsed.  Now, the way I remember it, you were supposed to allow room for a player in the air to come down.  Smith was already leaving her feet and the defender was still moving.  I think what has happened is that the restricted circle, either as yet another consideration for the ref or as a crutch, has led to referees calling the player set if she is still AT THE TIME OF CONTACT - not when the offensive player leaves the ground. 

So not only are defenders allowed to clutch and grab on the perimeter, but if a player does drive inside to take advantage of that overplaying, all a secondary defender has to do is get her feet out of the circle and come to a stop before the offensive player does, and then preferably theatrically go down in a heap.  More often than not, it appears, the charge will be called.

Your mileage may vary.  But I've noticed the proportion of charge to block calls climbing steadily, and increasing in absolute numbers, as teams adapt to this trend in officiating.

VG




Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Griffins78 - 04-02-2013

VG - amen to that.

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - Griffins78 - 04-02-2013

VG - amen to that.

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - 81alum - 04-02-2013

VG, spot on.

Women's basketball scores on average have plummeted over the last twenty years, since we won our last national champtionships--about 10-15 points a game fewer.  The difference is almost entirely declining free throws.  In 1995-6 (Kate Starbird year) we had 726 free throw attempts.  This year we had 589, despite the year-long hacking against Chiney.  I imagine you could chart a steady downward slope.

The reduction in the number of inside fouls called in WBB is seriously damaging the game--making it more defensive--uglier in my opinion.  Shifting the game to a game of pushing rather than a game of movement inside.

I may simply not know enough about basketball, but my amateur eye thought Chiney was probably fouled on every shot she took in the second half. And we lost the game due in large measure due to having 14 fewer free throws than Georgia.

Re: OT: Baylor loses! - 81alum - 04-02-2013

VG, spot on.

Women's basketball scores on average have plummeted over the last twenty years, since we won our last national champtionships--about 10-15 points a game fewer.  The difference is almost entirely declining free throws.  In 1995-6 (Kate Starbird year) we had 726 free throw attempts.  This year we had 589, despite the year-long hacking against Chiney.  I imagine you could chart a steady downward slope.

The reduction in the number of inside fouls called in WBB is seriously damaging the game--making it more defensive--uglier in my opinion.  Shifting the game to a game of pushing rather than a game of movement inside.

I may simply not know enough about basketball, but my amateur eye thought Chiney was probably fouled on every shot she took in the second half. And we lost the game due in large measure due to having 14 fewer free throws than Georgia.