| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who will win this game? |
| Lynx |
|
84% |
[ 11 ] |
| Fever |
|
15% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24349
Location: London
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/07/17 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Randy wrote: |
I doubt that partisan fans will ever agree this one so I won't even try, but I would like to explore the rule.
I suppose I should read the rule, but I won't because the announcers talk about it all the time. What confuses me is that some of the announcers say quite often that any contact neck above is Flagrant 1. But frequently it isn't called that way apparently under the presumption that there was no hostile intent, no one has been taken to hospital or whatever. |
I think a big part of the problem there is that so many of these announcers work NCAA games as well, and they bring that rule with them where they've been actively punishing any contact above the neck in recent years.
And you really can't just read the rule, because all the rule says is that if contact is unnecessary then it's a Flagrant 1, and if contact is unnecessary and excessive, it's a Flagrant 2. All contact is essentially 'unnecessary', so it's always been a dumbass way to phrase the rule. What actually gets called what comes down to the interpretation instructions given to the officials which aren't actually specified in the rulebook. |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/07/17 7:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
A little late, but:
LYNXTON GOES DOWN!
LYNXTON GOES DOWN!
LYNXTON GOES DOWN! |
|
sportsfan48
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 1228
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/07/17 8:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| Aladyyn wrote: |
| calbearman76 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
[January swang her arm back to try and free herself from a defender. That swing hit a player above the neck, and is not considered a "basketball play". Not sure how that wouldn't be a flagrant...
|
I guess we''ll just disagree. But I haven't heard anyone comment about the clock problem. How do you lose 5 seconds at the end of the game like that? |
Before the play continued it showed 19 but when they inbouded it jumped to 24. |
Thank you |
When Simone's basket goes in there is 24 seconds on the clock. The clock does not stop at a made basket but you can clearly hear the whistle at the end of the basket to stop the clock. Pokey called a timeout which the officials used to check whether the basket by Augustus was a 2 or a 3.
On the court, after the basket and as Pokey was calling the timeout (Indiana's last), the ball was inbounded which could account for some of the time off the clock. The advancement of the ball was not recognized by the officials due to the timeout call. Normally, if the ball is inbounded it can not be advanced to half court if the inbounding occurred during game time. But in this case the clock had stopped when Pokey called the timeout and the ball was inbounded during a "dead" time.
Bottom line, the clock ran off a little in the process of the made basket and timeout confusion but the 24 seconds that were on the clock when Indiana inbounded at half court was the correct time. If not, Indiana has to inbound under the basket, not at half court, and they still have a timeout left.
A bit later in the game, they show Pokey saying she is out of timeouts. The timeout she had taken was still showing. What made the whole thing confusing was the officials using the timeout time to verify the shot.
The officials got it right. No one had an advantage timeout wise, time wise, and ball location wise.
|
|
bcdawg04
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Posts: 565
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/07/17 10:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Randy wrote: |
I doubt that partisan fans will ever agree this one so I won't even try, but I would like to explore the rule.
I suppose I should read the rule, but I won't because the announcers talk about it all the time. What confuses me is that some of the announcers say quite often that any contact neck above is Flagrant 1. But frequently it isn't called that way apparently under the presumption that there was no hostile intent, no one has been taken to hospital or whatever.
Determining intent and whether it was excessive or unneeded contact is pretty hard. I would just go with contact neck or above is a Flagrant 1. For Flagrant 2, of course, you would have to look at more issues because it is an ejection. I might even change the name of the foul from Flagrant 1 to something wimpier but less judgemental, like protected area foul. My feeling is the game it already to 'physical" (euphemism for dirty) and it would clean things up a bit. |
Intent doesn't really matter (at least for flag 1. Intent could make flag 1 into a flag 2). And it just being above the neck is not enough for a flag 1 call. The strike above the neck has to come from a move that was not "basketball related". So if a player is swinging their elbows to create space and connects with a player in the head or neck area it is a flag 1 at least, regardless of intent. But now say a player goes up for a block, and whiffs on the ball and then connects with the head or neck area, it is not a flag because it is within the confines of a player doing their job (though it would be a normal foul). If they took a huge windup, however, that could be interpreted as excessive and lead to a flag call.
This game actually demonstrates well the difference. Two different plays, both leading to contact with another player's face. In the first, January throws her arm back to create seperation. This is not considered normal basketball play, just as swinging arms after a rebound to create space is not considered such. Thus that contact is a flag one call. Refs will often let players get away with those types of plays without a foul call, but if you connect to with the defender's head or neck, they won't let it go (and are trained to not, for player saftey).
In the other play, Fowles was setting a screen. She did not swing her arms, nor were they at an odd level moving in (they were folded into her body, as players are trained to do when screening). Thus this play is a normal basketball movement. While there seems to be some partisan debate as to whether she got there in time, that would only be a question of a normal foul or not. If she was late it was a normal foul, if she was on time it was a legal play (also note that when refs review for a potential flag, they cannot call a normal foul if one was not called on the floor, only a flag if it meets the requirements. Being late to a screen, even of it injures a player, does not meet the definition of a flagrant.
So in one, an arm was swung away from the body and connected with another player's head. This was called a flagrant. In the other, the arms were tucked in, but still resulted in contact with another player's face. This was called not a flagrant. One was part of normal play, one was excessive and unnecessary movement. This is exactly how the rule is written. |
I'm not a Lynx fan, but I agree with your assessment--good call on the Flagrant 1 on January and good no-call on Fowles' screen. However, I can't stand January so I'm not sure I can be objective when it comes to her. Where she comes from, if you have a fistful of your opponent's jersey, it's considered "good" defense. If you have a fistful of her arm, it's considered "great" defense. And if Charli had been there last night, she probably would have already been in the refs' heads and had them convinced that January is allowed to swing her arm into the opponent's head. 
| justintyme wrote: |
| ...also note that when refs review for a potential flag, they cannot call a normal foul if one was not called on the floor, only a flag if it meets the requirements. |
I thought that was the case, but we saw the refs violate that in a game earlier this year. With the Storm setting up on offense, Swords and a defender had some sort of minor collision away from the ball. The defender went down in a heap and stayed down. The ref looked at her. Swords looked at the ref. The ref looked at Swords and then looked back at the player on the ground. Then the ref stopped play and asked for a review. She never signaled for a foul until after the review, and ultimately the call was a common foul on Swords. Once the refs started the review without making a call, I thought they should have either come back with Flagrant 1 on Swords or Storm ball on the side. Just more creative officiating, I guess.
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 16464
Location: Holland
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/08/17 3:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bcdawg04 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| Randy wrote: |
I doubt that partisan fans will ever agree this one so I won't even try, but I would like to explore the rule.
I suppose I should read the rule, but I won't because the announcers talk about it all the time. What confuses me is that some of the announcers say quite often that any contact neck above is Flagrant 1. But frequently it isn't called that way apparently under the presumption that there was no hostile intent, no one has been taken to hospital or whatever.
Determining intent and whether it was excessive or unneeded contact is pretty hard. I would just go with contact neck or above is a Flagrant 1. For Flagrant 2, of course, you would have to look at more issues because it is an ejection. I might even change the name of the foul from Flagrant 1 to something wimpier but less judgemental, like protected area foul. My feeling is the game it already to 'physical" (euphemism for dirty) and it would clean things up a bit. |
Intent doesn't really matter (at least for flag 1. Intent could make flag 1 into a flag 2). And it just being above the neck is not enough for a flag 1 call. The strike above the neck has to come from a move that was not "basketball related". So if a player is swinging their elbows to create space and connects with a player in the head or neck area it is a flag 1 at least, regardless of intent. But now say a player goes up for a block, and whiffs on the ball and then connects with the head or neck area, it is not a flag because it is within the confines of a player doing their job (though it would be a normal foul). If they took a huge windup, however, that could be interpreted as excessive and lead to a flag call.
This game actually demonstrates well the difference. Two different plays, both leading to contact with another player's face. In the first, January throws her arm back to create seperation. This is not considered normal basketball play, just as swinging arms after a rebound to create space is not considered such. Thus that contact is a flag one call. Refs will often let players get away with those types of plays without a foul call, but if you connect to with the defender's head or neck, they won't let it go (and are trained to not, for player saftey).
In the other play, Fowles was setting a screen. She did not swing her arms, nor were they at an odd level moving in (they were folded into her body, as players are trained to do when screening). Thus this play is a normal basketball movement. While there seems to be some partisan debate as to whether she got there in time, that would only be a question of a normal foul or not. If she was late it was a normal foul, if she was on time it was a legal play (also note that when refs review for a potential flag, they cannot call a normal foul if one was not called on the floor, only a flag if it meets the requirements. Being late to a screen, even of it injures a player, does not meet the definition of a flagrant.
So in one, an arm was swung away from the body and connected with another player's head. This was called a flagrant. In the other, the arms were tucked in, but still resulted in contact with another player's face. This was called not a flagrant. One was part of normal play, one was excessive and unnecessary movement. This is exactly how the rule is written. |
I'm not a Lynx fan, but I agree with your assessment--good call on the Flagrant 1 on January and good no-call on Fowles' screen. However, I can't stand January so I'm not sure I can be objective when it comes to her. Where she comes from, if you have a fistful of your opponent's jersey, it's considered "good" defense. If you have a fistful of her arm, it's considered "great" defense. And if Charli had been there last night, she probably would have already been in the refs' heads and had them convinced that January is allowed to swing her arm into the opponent's head.
| justintyme wrote: |
| ...also note that when refs review for a potential flag, they cannot call a normal foul if one was not called on the floor, only a flag if it meets the requirements. |
I thought that was the case, but we saw the refs violate that in a game earlier this year. With the Storm setting up on offense, Swords and a defender had some sort of minor collision away from the ball. The defender went down in a heap and stayed down. The ref looked at her. Swords looked at the ref. The ref looked at Swords and then looked back at the player on the ground. Then the ref stopped play and asked for a review. She never signaled for a foul until after the review, and ultimately the call was a common foul on Swords. Once the refs started the review without making a call, I thought they should have either come back with Flagrant 1 on Swords or Storm ball on the side. Just more creative officiating, I guess. |
It was an offensive foul but that was not what the refs where reviewing. Sami Whitcomb shot a 3pointer right after her illegal screen and it went down. So they reviewed if the shot was at the same time of the offensive foul or after it. They decided that it was after so the basket didnt count and it was still an offensive foul from Swords.
January likes to swing her off arm a lot. Just ask PFT's teeth in the 2009 finals 
_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
|
|
bcdawg04
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Posts: 565
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/09/17 7:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Michelle89 wrote: |
| It was an offensive foul but that was not what the refs where reviewing. Sami Whitcomb shot a 3pointer right after her illegal screen and it went down. So they reviewed if the shot was at the same time of the offensive foul or after it. They decided that it was after so the basket didnt count and it was still an offensive foul from Swords. |
That was a different play, in a different game. I remember that play. It was on the opposite side of the court from where I sit, so I later looked at it again on League Pass. Elise Woodward and the other announcer talked about how, if the illegal screen led to the shooter being open, then there is no way that the basket should count. The defender was out of control, but Swords maybe wasn't set on the screen. If she wasn't set, then it was an illegal screen and reviewing the timing of the shot was silly.
The play I was referring to was against Atlanta, earlier in the season. I was mistaken about the defender ending up on the ground. She didn't go down, but she grabbed her face. In real time the ref did not see the contact so there was no immediate call. Because of the potential of a flagrant with the contact above the shoulders, she blew the whistle to stop play and then asked for a review. Her first signal after stopping play was for a review, not for a foul call. So it was frustrating that the refs would come back after the review and change the no-call to a common foul.
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 16464
Location: Holland
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/17 4:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bcdawg04 wrote: |
| Michelle89 wrote: |
| It was an offensive foul but that was not what the refs where reviewing. Sami Whitcomb shot a 3pointer right after her illegal screen and it went down. So they reviewed if the shot was at the same time of the offensive foul or after it. They decided that it was after so the basket didnt count and it was still an offensive foul from Swords. |
That was a different play, in a different game. I remember that play. It was on the opposite side of the court from where I sit, so I later looked at it again on League Pass. Elise Woodward and the other announcer talked about how, if the illegal screen led to the shooter being open, then there is no way that the basket should count. The defender was out of control, but Swords maybe wasn't set on the screen. If she wasn't set, then it was an illegal screen and reviewing the timing of the shot was silly.
The play I was referring to was against Atlanta, earlier in the season. I was mistaken about the defender ending up on the ground. She didn't go down, but she grabbed her face. In real time the ref did not see the contact so there was no immediate call. Because of the potential of a flagrant with the contact above the shoulders, she blew the whistle to stop play and then asked for a review. Her first signal after stopping play was for a review, not for a foul call. So it was frustrating that the refs would come back after the review and change the no-call to a common foul. |
Sometimes there are offensive fouls during the shot. If that shot goes in then it counts and they also call the offensive foul and we go the other way as usual with a foul. I think thats why they thought they should review it.
Swords was set in the beginning but the defender grabbed her a bit and she started moving sideways like she always does in these screens. I agreed with the offensive foul call.
This season the refs call a review almost every time a players grabs her face. Its very annoying. Sometimes you can catch an elbow in your face during a rebounding situation and its not a foul, T or a so called hostile act.
Like for example i didnt like the technical on Lavender and there are many other situations ( Krystal Thomas rebounding the ball and hitting someone by accident)
_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
|
|
|
