WBB: Stanford 82 Santa Clara 43 - 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: WBB: Stanford 82 Santa Clara 43 (/thread-8465.html)
+- 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: WBB: Stanford 82 Santa Clara 43 (/thread-8465.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: WBB: Stanford 82 Santa Clara 43 - 81alum - 12-17-2014
(12-17-2014, 06:13 AM)garvin link Wrote:There was some scattered booing in the stands on that call. I think the non-call caught everyone very much by surprise. One of those times when it was so obvious and so blatant that it was easier for casual watchers to believe that the refs had their reasons than that they missed it. In a tight game, or against a hated foe, the scattered booing would have been resounding.Quote:But then at 15:09 in the 2nd half, a Santa Clara player runs too far under the basket and has to release ("shoot") the ball behind the basket to avoid the travel call. She then catches it herself, going L-R-L-R-L-R in her steps), with no one else being within 3 feet of the ball nor was the ball anywhere close to hitting the backboard.
I saw that play, too, and wondered why it wasn't called traveling. Maybe no official had a good enough angle to be sure the ball wasn't touched or deflected, but it looked awfully blatant on my TV set.
Refs and Rules - M T - 12-17-2014
Re Marianne Karp. I wasn't saying she was a poor ref. She's someone I've noticed a lot over the last couple of years. I believe she's usually the head official of the crew, and I'm sure she knows the rules. I just couldn't fathom those two non-calls, when I feel certain she was in position and watching the play where it happened. On a free throw, maybe the ref under the basket is to watch for players stepping into the lane or fouls as they start to move into the lane, and it is another official's call as to whether the ball goes in or misses the rim.
(12-16-2014, 05:50 PM)BobK link Wrote:Do you remember when they installed the swinging elbows rule? A good idea with a of exceedingly large proportions flaw. If a 6-4 women is swinging she can almost only hit the opponent's head if she does connect with an opponent. A 5-8 women swinging can only connect with a head if the opponent is about 5-0 or so. Therefore the penatly is on the big women swinging their elbows not the smaller women. So Jaye Appel gets a rebound swings an elbow little women hit in the head Jayne ejected.ÂFrom this year's rule book:
I think they have modified the rule to intent. So back to Gray once she stomped her foot there was intent when she stepped on the Long Beach player.
Quote:Illegal contact caused by the swinging
of the elbow(s) that occurs above or below the shoulders of an opponent is a
common, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul. It is no longer an automatic flagrant
1 personal foul for illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent.
I searched the rule book for "intent" and found no mention relating intent and flagrant fouls. The key word is "excessive". If a player did cartwheels after a score and accidentally struck an opponent in the face with her foot, that would be an (unintentional) flagrant 2 foul.
I didn't see the foul that Gray committed. The long discussion must have been whether to charge her with a flagrant 2 technical foul for (a) "A player flagrantly or excessively contacting an opponent while the ball is dead." or (b) fighting - "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." From the description here, it sounds like it might qualify as a fight. For the first instance of fighting, the player is suspended from playing the next game; the second instance results in suspension for the season. That distinction is probably worth the 10 minutes to try to get right.
I certainly remember Reshanda apparently intentionally throwing the ball into another player's face last year during their Utah game (based on her looking straight at the player's face as she releases the ball directly at the opponent's face from an arm's length). To me, that should have been an obvious flagrant foul (intent or no) and probably a fighting call (which is a flagrant 2 personal foul, but with further consequences). (2.5 minutes earlier, Reshanda should have been called for a dead-ball technical contact foul for throwing her opponent to the ground in a tie-ball situation after the whistle had been blown. The exact situation of continuing to fight for a tie ball after the whistle is blown was highlighted as an example in the NCAA Women's Basketball Instructional Video last year.)
Regarding the play I thought was a travel ... Score one for Marianne Karp.
The rule for traveling is pretty impenetrable. Basically, you have to maintain your feet in a certain way unless you dribble, pass, or try for a goal. But, as best I can figure, "try for goal" applies even if the player, on their own, doesn't throw the ball anywhere near the goal.
Quote:The try starts when the player begins the motion that normally precedesThere is no rule that the ball has to touch the backboard, rim, or another player before the shooter again takes possession. (For a fumbled ball, a touch by another player is required for fumbler to regain the ball. Also, it is not a legal pass to pass to yourself unless the ball touches another player.) So that should have been scored as a missed shot and rebound by that player. Odd... if she had somehow managed to get the ball in the basket, it would not have counted and would have been Stanford's ball (the ball is out of bounds if it passes over the backboard, which would have been required from that position)
the release of the ball on a try. The ball does not need to leave the players hand.
The arm might be held so that the player cannot throw; however, she may be
making an attempt.
As I read the rule, if a player dribbles to a spot, attempts to make a (non-jump) shot such that she maintains her feet on the ground and the ball is blocked so that it never leaves her hand (or even if it does), that player is entitled to a new dribble and it should be ruled a missed shot, a block, and a rebound. If she leaves her feet, and a defender runs by and blocks the ball from leaving her hand, but does not keep her hand on the ball until the shooter returns to the ground, the shooter is entitled to a new dribble. Again, as I read the rules, it is a missed shot, a block and a rebound. It is a held ball only if both the defender and shooter have their hands on the ball when an airborne shooter comes to the ground.
It seems to me that I've seen this usually called as traveling. (I do not believe that the same rule applies on an attempted pass as on an attempted try for goal.)