WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - 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 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! (/thread-17400.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 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! (/thread-17400.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - martyup - 03-11-2019
(03-10-2019, 10:50 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Michelle Smith article: https://pac-12.com/article/2019/03/10/michelle-smith-wbb-feature-stanford-executes-game-plan-claim-13th-pac-12-title
Quote:Using a scout masterfully assembled by associate head coach Kate Paye, Stanford held Oregon to a season-low 57 points and 33.9 percent shooting from the floor. The Ducks, who average 87.3 points a game, had just 24 points at the half and Stanford built a 14-point lead in the 3rd quarter before a pair of scary moments blunted their momentum, and the Ducks clawed back into the game to take a lead.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - 81alum - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 07:45 AM)martyup Wrote:I wonder who had the scout a month ago against Oregon?(03-10-2019, 10:50 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Michelle Smith article: https://pac-12.com/article/2019/03/10/michelle-smith-wbb-feature-stanford-executes-game-plan-claim-13th-pac-12-title
Quote:Using a scout masterfully assembled by associate head coach Kate Paye, Stanford held Oregon to a season-low 57 points and 33.9 percent shooting from the floor. The Ducks, who average 87.3 points a game, had just 24 points at the half and Stanford built a 14-point lead in the 3rd quarter before a pair of scary moments blunted their momentum, and the Ducks clawed back into the game to take a lead.
Kate doesn't always get the credit she deserves. She is absolutely brilliant (JD/MBA from Stanford, really?) and quite obviously has learned enough from Tara to pinpoint opposition weaknesses. Tempie is a chalk talk favorite because she is funny and good natured, while Kate struggles to be anything other than serious. She's like a lawyer in there--oops, she IS a lawyer. I'd rather talk to Tempie about any subject, any day. But a serious and brilliiant basketball mind is what you need to win games. I hope we can keep Kate for a long time to come.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - crackpot - 03-11-2019
Quote:I wonder who had the scout a month ago against Oregon?
Pretty sure KATE had the scout, because 1) Tempie had done the OSU scout (gotten a lot of praise for it); and, 2) Lindy did the chalktalk prior to the Oregon game.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - Viking_Guy - 03-11-2019
I don't think enough props can be given to Anna Wilson for her performance yesterday.
Watching the semifinal, it became apparent to me what screwed up Oregon was denying their movement with the ball. UCLA had the lateral quickness to cut down on penetration angles, and that kept them from having to overrotate their defenses to cover and thus leave open someone, generally a perimeter shooter. With the Hulls out there, they can deny passing angles with their length, but were consistently trailing the play on drives. Going under the screen, they couldn't recover in time to stop the drive, and that was leading to their foul trouble.
Wilson was having none of that. Fighting through screens, or diving quickly under them and getting into the driving lane opposite, she forced Ionescu to either pull up (which, to be fair, Sabrina does really well), or kick the ball back out.
One under-praised moment in particular - simple pick and roll with Hebard in the second half, and Dodson comes off to deny the drive. Wilson, instead of continuing to trail after Ionescu, darts quickly into the passing lane to deflect away a Ionescu drop pass that would've led to an easy layup for Hebard. That's just great anticipatory defense and speed.
The other thing for Wilson is that she was more willing that the Hulls have been recently to shoot. Even though she was ineffective, going 1-7 from 3, she was willing to pull the trigger. I've been noticing a reluctance of the twins to shoot from deep recently - a whole lot of "upfake, then try to reset" or "upfake, and take two steps forward to shoot the baseline 15 footer." Anna simply released the ball when she was in the right spot and open.
I noticed in the blowout that Wilson seemed to have the best time matching up with Ionescu. Hoping she sees more time against penetrating guard-oriented teams in the coming weeks.
VG
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - BosCard - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 10:14 AM)Viking_Guy Wrote: I don't think enough props can be given to Anna Wilson for her performance yesterday.
Watching the semifinal, it became apparent to me what screwed up Oregon was denying their movement with the ball. UCLA had the lateral quickness to cut down on penetration angles, and that kept them from having to overrotate their defenses to cover and thus leave open someone, generally a perimeter shooter. With the Hulls out there, they can deny passing angles with their length, but were consistently trailing the play on drives. Going under the screen, they couldn't recover in time to stop the drive, and that was leading to their foul trouble.
Wilson was having none of that. Fighting through screens, or diving quickly under them and getting into the driving lane opposite, she forced Ionescu to either pull up (which, to be fair, Sabrina does really well), or kick the ball back out.
One under-praised moment in particular - simple pick and roll with Hebard in the second half, and Dodson comes off to deny the drive. Wilson, instead of continuing to trail after Ionescu, darts quickly into the passing lane to deflect away a Ionescu drop pass that would've led to an easy layup for Hebard. That's just great anticipatory defense and speed.
The other thing for Wilson is that she was more willing that the Hulls have been recently to shoot. Even though she was ineffective, going 1-7 from 3, she was willing to pull the trigger. I've been noticing a reluctance of the twins to shoot from deep recently - a whole lot of "upfake, then try to reset" or "upfake, and take two steps forward to shoot the baseline 15 footer." Anna simply released the ball when she was in the right spot and open.
I noticed in the blowout that Wilson seemed to have the best time matching up with Ionescu. Hoping she sees more time against penetrating guard-oriented teams in the coming weeks.
VG
Completely agree with you about Wilson. She was really really good last night defensively and she had the hardest job since Ionescu had the ball in her hands most of the night. Oregon was setting a lot of hard screens and the Hulls were having trouble getting over them (they tend to try and slide around the screen). Wilson is more physical and she slides/fights through the screen and recovered quickly and on-balance when she was bumped. Exciting that we have so many good perimeter defenders and that they are different kinds of defenders. The Hulls have quick feet and use their length. Wilson has quick feet and is very athletic. All three of them have high basketball IQ's on the defensive side.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - BobK - 03-11-2019
New RPI we are 4. Hoping for Portland but agree a very long shot
Wilson my hero of the game but a great job on D and so close on several of her missed threes
Key arena in Seattle being remodeled so Vegas a very lociall choice and the men here this week
Great restaurants at the MGM.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - qwerty49 - 03-11-2019
We definitely found our #1 lock-down defender yesterday. And she proved to everyone that height has little to do with it.
(03-11-2019, 10:43 AM)BosCard Wrote:(03-11-2019, 10:14 AM)Viking_Guy Wrote: I don't think enough props can be given to Anna Wilson for her performance yesterday.
Watching the semifinal, it became apparent to me what screwed up Oregon was denying their movement with the ball. UCLA had the lateral quickness to cut down on penetration angles, and that kept them from having to overrotate their defenses to cover and thus leave open someone, generally a perimeter shooter. With the Hulls out there, they can deny passing angles with their length, but were consistently trailing the play on drives. Going under the screen, they couldn't recover in time to stop the drive, and that was leading to their foul trouble.
Wilson was having none of that. Fighting through screens, or diving quickly under them and getting into the driving lane opposite, she forced Ionescu to either pull up (which, to be fair, Sabrina does really well), or kick the ball back out.
One under-praised moment in particular - simple pick and roll with Hebard in the second half, and Dodson comes off to deny the drive. Wilson, instead of continuing to trail after Ionescu, darts quickly into the passing lane to deflect away a Ionescu drop pass that would've led to an easy layup for Hebard. That's just great anticipatory defense and speed.
The other thing for Wilson is that she was more willing that the Hulls have been recently to shoot. Even though she was ineffective, going 1-7 from 3, she was willing to pull the trigger. I've been noticing a reluctance of the twins to shoot from deep recently - a whole lot of "upfake, then try to reset" or "upfake, and take two steps forward to shoot the baseline 15 footer." Anna simply released the ball when she was in the right spot and open.
I noticed in the blowout that Wilson seemed to have the best time matching up with Ionescu. Hoping she sees more time against penetrating guard-oriented teams in the coming weeks.
VG
Completely agree with you about Wilson. She was really really good last night defensively and she had the hardest job since Ionescu had the ball in her hands most of the night. Oregon was setting a lot of hard screens and the Hulls were having trouble getting over them (they tend to try and slide around the screen). Wilson is more physical and she slides/fights through the screen and recovered quickly and on-balance when she was bumped. Exciting that we have so many good perimeter defenders and that they are different kinds of defenders. The Hulls have quick feet and use their length. Wilson has quick feet and is very athletic. All three of them have high basketball IQ's on the defensive side.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - UltimateCard - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 10:43 AM)BosCard Wrote:(03-11-2019, 10:14 AM)Viking_Guy Wrote: I don't think enough props can be given to Anna Wilson for her performance yesterday.
Watching the semifinal, it became apparent to me what screwed up Oregon was denying their movement with the ball. UCLA had the lateral quickness to cut down on penetration angles, and that kept them from having to overrotate their defenses to cover and thus leave open someone, generally a perimeter shooter. With the Hulls out there, they can deny passing angles with their length, but were consistently trailing the play on drives. Going under the screen, they couldn't recover in time to stop the drive, and that was leading to their foul trouble.
Wilson was having none of that. Fighting through screens, or diving quickly under them and getting into the driving lane opposite, she forced Ionescu to either pull up (which, to be fair, Sabrina does really well), or kick the ball back out.
One under-praised moment in particular - simple pick and roll with Hebard in the second half, and Dodson comes off to deny the drive. Wilson, instead of continuing to trail after Ionescu, darts quickly into the passing lane to deflect away a Ionescu drop pass that would've led to an easy layup for Hebard. That's just great anticipatory defense and speed.
The other thing for Wilson is that she was more willing that the Hulls have been recently to shoot. Even though she was ineffective, going 1-7 from 3, she was willing to pull the trigger. I've been noticing a reluctance of the twins to shoot from deep recently - a whole lot of "upfake, then try to reset" or "upfake, and take two steps forward to shoot the baseline 15 footer." Anna simply released the ball when she was in the right spot and open.
I noticed in the blowout that Wilson seemed to have the best time matching up with Ionescu. Hoping she sees more time against penetrating guard-oriented teams in the coming weeks.
VG
Completely agree with you about Wilson. She was really really good last night defensively and she had the hardest job since Ionescu had the ball in her hands most of the night. Oregon was setting a lot of hard screens and the Hulls were having trouble getting over them (they tend to try and slide around the screen). Wilson is more physical and she slides/fights through the screen and recovered quickly and on-balance when she was bumped. Exciting that we have so many good perimeter defenders and that they are different kinds of defenders. The Hulls have quick feet and use their length. Wilson has quick feet and is very athletic. All three of them have high basketball IQ's on the defensive side.
Imagine the Hulls once they add some muscle in the off-season!
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - FarmDad.01 - 03-11-2019
Since Oregon's massacre at Maples, Stanford has played nine games, all wins -- four of them over NCAA tournament-bound teams. The one opponent to shoot 40% from the field was visiting Arizona, and the Wildcats almost won because Stanford shot .368 (its second cold game in a row: .371 in the win @ USC). The offense seems have regained functionality.
But at season's end, the winning edge is defense. And with Dodson's return to game-readiness, and Coffee's blossoming confidence, the Cardinal have two bigs capable of slowing down opposing bigs.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - Spiny_Norman - 03-11-2019
This game was so much fun to watch. The tone was set from the first few seconds that it would be different from a month ago. Maya Dodson blocked Oregon's 1st shot of the game by Ruthie Hebard. Then Alanna Smith blocked Morgan Yeager's attempt at the end of the quarter. Smith blocked it into the crowd. I sure got fired up at home. If anyone has a gif of Smith's block, I would love to see it again.
Kudos to everyone on the team from the players and coaches down to the trainers. The tone of the game became ominous for Stanford when Smith and Dodson left the game in the 3rd quarter. But the pendulum swung back once they re-entered.
After an emotional classic like this, I am glad that the team has exams and a 10 day break before playing again. Need to recharge the batteries.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon 57 we are champs! - qwerty49 - 03-11-2019
(03-10-2019, 07:15 PM)M T Wrote: Creme said Miss State will get Portland #1 if Oregon loses
I guess it really makes little difference, since Miss St and Oregon just swap seeds for Portland, but I'm just surprised that Oregon's head-to-head win over Miss St earlier in the year doesn't seem to count for much.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - 2006alum - 03-11-2019
So many highlights last night - Dodson's tremendous work in the paint, Wilson's tremendous d on Ionescu, both Hulls going at Ionescu early and I think using a few fouls to declare "you aren't going to push us over this time!" And of course Carrington, Smith, and Williams with clutch plays down the stretch. But for the 3-4 minutes in the third quarter when both Smith and Maya went down, I think in many ways this was our most complete performance since the Baylor game.
And, notably, the past few weeks have been the first time all season we've had all our available players healthy and not minutes-limited, and the team really seems to be gelling. It's a testament to Tara that we weathered having so many players down (first Lexie, then Wilson, then Dodson) and out (Fingall) and yet you'd barely be able to tell from our W-L record.
One thing I've always found interesting about the Oregon schools is that they are exceptional when they execute their "Plan A," but neither school is especially great at "Plan B" if the other team can force them out of their Plan A. Sometimes they can bail themselves out because they have studs like Ionescu (and for OSU, Pivec, whom one of the commentators during the tournament aptly titled "the dreamcrusher"), but I feel like our comparatively good records against them vis-a-vis other PAC-12 teams stems in part from Tara's ability to force them into uncomfortable situations, and they aren't always exceptional at responding and adapting. Last night was indicative of that - I didn't feel like they did much differently in the second half, and while a run from them was inevitable, the "vibe" on the floor seemed like we had a much better sense of what we needed to do than they did. Sabally, in particular, I felt like didn't quite seem to know what she should be doing half the time, and she's a seriously, seriously good player.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - qwerty49 - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 12:33 PM)2006alum Wrote: Sabally, in particular, I felt like didn't quite seem to know what she should be doing half the time, and she's a seriously, seriously good player.
I thought Smith played great D on Sabally. Sabally has great tools but she doesn't really drive to her right very effectively. Alanna figured that out and was waiting for the left move, stopped it a lot.
Oregon has so many options from that starting five. That might actually be the main problem. Five scorers and only one ball. Even the Warriors have problems with that model.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - BosCard - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 01:48 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(03-11-2019, 12:33 PM)2006alum Wrote: Sabally, in particular, I felt like didn't quite seem to know what she should be doing half the time, and she's a seriously, seriously good player.
I thought Smith played great D on Sabally. Sabally has great tools but she doesn't really drive to her right very effectively. Alanna figured that out and was waiting for the left move, stopped it a lot.
Oregon has so many options from that starting five. That might actually be the main problem. Five scorers and only one ball. Even the Warriors have problems with that model.
True but the Ionescu + Hebard pick and roll, which they went to over and over again, is normally so effective. Ionescu is so dangerous as she is great at shooting the three, hitting a mid-range jumper, finishing a layup with contact or passing to Hebard or an open 3-point shooter. Wilson and Dodson defended that pick and roll about as well as you can. Dodson's shot blocking made Hebard a little hesitant and Wilson stayed in front of Ionescu as well as anyone can and had her hands ready to deflect pocket passes to Hebard. Their ability to defend one on one meant our other players could stay home on the three point shooters and take them out of the play.
If we had a pick and roll like that, we would go to it over and over again. Just look at the end of the Oregon/UCLA game where Hebard just destroyed UCLA with layup after layup.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon 57 we are champs! - Spiny_Norman - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote: I'm not sure we want to be in Portland. We had trouble with Gonzaga, which I bet will wind up in Portland. The NCAA is already ignoring their #13 RPI and not putting them in the top 16.
The Zags may not be quite the team they have been all season come tournament time. Two of their best players were injured in the game today vs. St. Mary's (which Gonzaga won in 2OT).
Quote:The win came at a cost as the Zags lost two players to leg injuries. Laura Stockton went down early in the third quarter and Jill Townsend in the second overtime. Stockton was hurt underneath the basket and the Gonzaga training staff came out to comfort her and help her off the court to the locker room a few minutes later. She was putting no weight on the injured leg. Her father, Hall of Famer John Stockton and his wife Nada, went to the back minutes later to be with their daughter. The senior guard came back out with 4:27 left in the fourth quarter to support her team on crutches with a brobdingnagian black brace on her left leg.
Townsend's left leg buckled as she tried to help on defense early in the second overtime. She was down on the court for a few minutes before they carried her off the court to the locker room with an air cast on the injury.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - 76lsjumb - 03-11-2019
It looked to me like the success of the Hebard/Ionescu pick-and-roll derived from one overwhelming characteristic -- the effectiveness of Hebard's hip [and, occasionally, knee] in disrupting the defender without drawing a foul call. If I recall correctly, Hebard either never got called [or got called only once] for screens that almost always involved a very well-timed and well-placed hip check. At least two of the Hull fouls, where they were called for running into Ionescu while trying to get around the screen, looked like they were set in motion by a nifty Hebard hip-check to the involved Hull at just the right time. And, even when there was no foul called on anyone, the screen either got Ionescu free for a relatively uncontested shot or set Hebard up perfectly on the roll as the defenders recovered.
For many years it has been frustrating to watch our bigs get called for illegal screens at the elbow or thereabouts due to sliding over enough to make the screen work. Ionescu and Hebard, however, worked out the timing and proximity of their screens so well that Hebard's movement was highly effective, but sufficiently subtle, so as not to draw a foul call most of the times it was employed. It would be great if we could get a duo working that well in the future...
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon 57 we are champs! - M T - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 12:19 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(03-10-2019, 07:15 PM)M T Wrote: Creme said Miss State will get Portland #1 if Oregon loses
I guess it really makes little difference, since Miss St and Oregon just swap seeds for Portland, but I'm just surprised that Oregon's head-to-head win over Miss St earlier in the year doesn't seem to count for much.
Don't forget who pays Creme's salary.
![[Image: sec_network_logo.png]](http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2014/0617/sec_network_logo.png){kind=logo}
Silly me... I forgot that when I wondered how Mississippi State was rated that high.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon 57 we are champs! - CompSci87 - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 05:03 PM)M T Wrote:(03-11-2019, 12:19 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(03-10-2019, 07:15 PM)M T Wrote: Creme said Miss State will get Portland #1 if Oregon loses
I guess it really makes little difference, since Miss St and Oregon just swap seeds for Portland, but I'm just surprised that Oregon's head-to-head win over Miss St earlier in the year doesn't seem to count for much.
Don't forget who pays Creme's salary.
Silly me... I forgot that when I wondered how Mississippi State was rated that high.
Creme has some nice self-contradictory reasoning for MissSt being a #1:
Quote:The Bulldogs earned the No. 1 seed by completing the clean sweep of the SEC regular-season and tournament championships. Despite a weaker overall résumé than Louisville, Oregon and Stanford, Mississippi State is the only one with two titles and just two losses.
Weaker overall resume should mean lower seed. If not, what does it mean? "Two titles" and "only two losses" are part of MissSt's overall resume, not something extra that makes up for its overall resume being weaker.
Maybe I'm just quibbling about a wording mistake, though. Maybe Creme meant to say that MissSt's resume is otherwise weaker than the other three, not overall weaker.
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - qwerty49 - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 03:41 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: It looked to me like the success of the Hebard/Ionescu pick-and-roll derived from one overwhelming characteristic -- the effectiveness of Hebard's hip [and, occasionally, knee] in disrupting the defender without drawing a foul call. If I recall correctly, Hebard either never got called [or got called only once] for screens that almost always involved a very well-timed and well-placed hip check. At least two of the Hull fouls, where they were called for running into Ionescu while trying to get around the screen, looked like they were set in motion by a nifty Hebard hip-check to the involved Hull at just the right time. And, even when there was no foul called on anyone, the screen either got Ionescu free for a relatively uncontested shot or set Hebard up perfectly on the roll as the defenders recovered.
For many years it has been frustrating to watch our bigs get called for illegal screens at the elbow or thereabouts due to sliding over enough to make the screen work. Ionescu and Hebard, however, worked out the timing and proximity of their screens so well that Hebard's movement was highly effective, but sufficiently subtle, so as not to draw a foul call most of the times it was employed. It would be great if we could get a duo working that well in the future...
Excellent points. As for us doing a version of that p-n-r, which of our guards can hit the pull-up jumper in traffic? Williams maybe, but might not be tall enough to execute consistently. Carrington has the hops but wouldn't we rather have her crashing the boards?
RE: WBB: Stanford 64 Oregon 57 we are champs! - M T - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 03:41 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: It looked to me like the success of the Hebard/Ionescu pick-and-roll derived from one overwhelming characteristic -- the effectiveness of Hebard's hip [and, occasionally, knee] in disrupting the defender without drawing a foul call. If I recall correctly, Hebard either never got called [or got called only once] for screens that almost always involved a very well-timed and well-placed hip check. At least two of the Hull fouls, where they were called for running into Ionescu while trying to get around the screen, looked like they were set in motion by a nifty Hebard hip-check to the involved Hull at just the right time. And, even when there was no foul called on anyone, the screen either got Ionescu free for a relatively uncontested shot or set Hebard up perfectly on the roll as the defenders recovered.
For many years it has been frustrating to watch our bigs get called for illegal screens at the elbow or thereabouts due to sliding over enough to make the screen work. Ionescu and Hebard, however, worked out the timing and proximity of their screens so well that Hebard's movement was highly effective, but sufficiently subtle, so as not to draw a foul call most of the times it was employed. It would be great if we could get a duo working that well in the future...
I absolutely agree with you as to the cause, but not about the subtlety. Rather than Stanford adopting what appears to be an illegal and potentially harmful move, I'd rather get Missy or one of the other refs to explain to me why that hip check isn't called regularly. I believe I remember one where Hebard had her legs spread about 6 feet for a screen (but I watched so much basketball in a few days, I could be remembering the wrong person!). (Usually the hip checks aren't accompanied by too large a spread, but is less obvious if your hips stay inside your feet.)
Quote:Art. 2. In establishing and maintaining legal screening tactics, the screener shall:
a. Stay within her vertical plane with a stance in which the inside of the
screener's feet are no wider than shoulder width apart. The screener shall
not lean into the path of an opponent or extend her hips into that path,
even though the feet are stationary.
If, for instance, Missy interprets this rule as to mean that it is legal for the screener to thrust her hips (or knee) sideways into the path of the opponent as long as her hips (knee) don't go outside of the outside of her feet, then everyone should know this. That's not how I read the rule, but I get the impression that Missy sometimes has readings I wouldn't expect. Such a reading would allow a 3+ inch thrust which will often send the opponent into the ball handler. (By initially leaning away from screen and then thrusting into it, a screener could get a full 6" of motion that would clearly cause contact. If Missy calls that foul on the opponent, that could explain a lot.)
As everyone remembers, it was a pronounced hip check (but in the open, not on a screen) that cost Nadia one of the 4 years of college BB that she gets.
Rule change suggestion: "extend her hips" -> "extend any part of her body" (hip, knee, elbow, shoulder, ...);
A little more controversially: "lean" -> "move" A lean implies a vertical slant. One could move up, down, or laterally to move into the opponent's path. The controversy is the typical uncalled screen where a player supposedly sets a screen and then moves somewhere else (including breaking to the basket), moving into the path of the opponent, but supposedly no longer setting a screen. One of the sticky points is "what is the path of the opponent" when the opponent has to change direction in response to the movement of the screener.