RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

#1 South Carolina vs #1 Stanford - 4/02/21
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - Game Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who will win this game?
South Carolina
20%
 20%  [ 5 ]
Stanford
80%
 80%  [ 20 ]
Total Votes : 25

Author Message
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 28306



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 7:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Great game, but Stanford needed lots of calls, non-calls, close calls and luck to win it.


we did get some, but I thought Boston could easily have fouled out way earlier in the game. She got away with a lot of inside contact. That alone would have changed the trajectory of the game.


undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 724
Location: midwest/indiana/iowa


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 7:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Coaching question: Why did TVD have Brink in the game at the end??? She's only a 64.7% FT shooter (per the Stanford website) and she's clearly not a ball handler -- so she seems like the last player you'd want to inbound to in that scenario where you know they are going to try to force the steal, then foul if that doesn't work.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 28306



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 7:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

undersized_post wrote:
Coaching question: Why did TVD have Brink in the game at the end??? She's only a 64.7% FT shooter (per the Stanford website) and she's clearly not a ball handler -- so she seems like the last player you'd want to inbound to in that scenario where you know they are going to try to force the steal, then foul if that doesn't work.


agree. she's been atrocious from the FT line in the tournament. Pretty weird.


undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 724
Location: midwest/indiana/iowa


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 7:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
undersized_post wrote:
Coaching question: Why did TVD have Brink in the game at the end??? She's only a 64.7% FT shooter (per the Stanford website) and she's clearly not a ball handler -- so she seems like the last player you'd want to inbound to in that scenario where you know they are going to try to force the steal, then foul if that doesn't work.


agree. she's been atrocious from the FT line in the tournament. Pretty weird.


Exactly! and clearly her ball handling was a liability there as well.

I liked the big line-up she was using for defensive and rebounding purposes---But not on the last possession lol.


undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 724
Location: midwest/indiana/iowa


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 7:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This is an Aliyah Boston appreciation post.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13505
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 7:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Great game, but Stanford needed lots of calls, non-calls, close calls and luck to win it.


we did get some, but I thought Boston could easily have fouled out way earlier in the game. She got away with a lot of inside contact. That alone would have changed the trajectory of the game.


Indeed. Stanford got the same ol' "UConn Breaks", albeit not in the final seconds. Laughing Laughing Seriously, though....that was yet another REALLY inconsistently called game. I don't watch the men's game: do they contend with this crap, also?

Given the crappy reffing went both ways, I'd say BOTH teams showed their experience in rolling with those 'barriers'. Strategically well-played by both coaches.

Miss Williams? Might you please *find* your game again??

I felt so badly for Miss Boston, but Lord knows, she'll be back. Cool Shocked



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 6309
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 7:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Great game, but Stanford needed lots of calls, non-calls, close calls and luck to win it.


Are you going to say the same thing about UCONN if they make the final? Or about Arizona if they should happen to beat UConn? You probably would have said this about SC if they’d won. Face it, the refs have let a lot go by this whole tournament and have been pretty atrocious all the way around.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom


Last edited by summertime blues on 04/02/21 9:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
jmh1982



Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 60
Location: Tucson, AZ


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 8:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
myrtle wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Great game, but Stanford needed lots of calls, non-calls, close calls and luck to win it.


we did get some, but I thought Boston could easily have fouled out way earlier in the game. She got away with a lot of inside contact. That alone would have changed the trajectory of the game.


Indeed. Stanford got the same ol' "UConn Breaks", albeit not in the final seconds. Laughing Laughing Seriously, though....that was yet another REALLY inconsistently called game. I don't watch the men's game: do they contend with this crap, also?

Given the crappy reffing went both ways, I'd say BOTH teams showed their experience in rolling with those 'barriers'. Strategically well-played by both coaches.

Miss Williams? Might you please *find* your game again??

I felt so badly for Miss Boston, but Lord knows, she'll be back. Cool Shocked

I feel like women's basketball is officiated much more loosely than the men's game at pretty much every level. On the plus side you don't get a whole lot of foul fests, but the down side is that you get a lot of missed calls.


undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 724
Location: midwest/indiana/iowa


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 8:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jmh1982 wrote:
Howee wrote:
myrtle wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Great game, but Stanford needed lots of calls, non-calls, close calls and luck to win it.


we did get some, but I thought Boston could easily have fouled out way earlier in the game. She got away with a lot of inside contact. That alone would have changed the trajectory of the game.


Indeed. Stanford got the same ol' "UConn Breaks", albeit not in the final seconds. Laughing Laughing Seriously, though....that was yet another REALLY inconsistently called game. I don't watch the men's game: do they contend with this crap, also?

Given the crappy reffing went both ways, I'd say BOTH teams showed their experience in rolling with those 'barriers'. Strategically well-played by both coaches.

Miss Williams? Might you please *find* your game again??

I felt so badly for Miss Boston, but Lord knows, she'll be back. Cool Shocked

I feel like women's basketball is officiated much more loosely than the men's game at pretty much every level. On the plus side you don't get a whole lot of foul fests, but the down side is that you get a lot of missed calls.


Do you watch many Big Ten men's game? I'd wager that's the loosest officiating in any collegiate conference, men's or women's.


Milks26



Joined: 25 Mar 2021
Posts: 87



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 10:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The refs missed the push in the back on Beal, and the kick ball off Zia but, they want to question Henderson's 3pt shot when the kid was clearly behind the line. I was literally shaking after she hit that shot and they went up by one.

The game was SC's to lose. The refs did they're sh*t like they normally do - but SC left points out there. They will be more than straight next year. Everyone will be back to include the #1 class. Fire



_________________
~Silence is Golden and duct tape is Silver~
undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 724
Location: midwest/indiana/iowa


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 10:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I posted this earlier but it got burried in the thread. Posting again because I'm genuinely curious:

Did you guys think that was a kicked ball? To me it looked like Cook dribbled it off of Hull's foot, which happened to be moving. But not a "kick" in the intentional sense. In other words, it looked, to me, more like Cook mishandled it and it happened to go off Hull's foot, which happened to be moving.


WfanFrJmp



Joined: 24 May 2016
Posts: 986



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/21 11:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

undersized_post wrote:
I posted this earlier but it got burried in the thread. Posting again because I'm genuinely curious:

Did you guys think that was a kicked ball? To me it looked like Cook dribbled it off of Hull's foot, which happened to be moving. But not a "kick" in the intentional sense. In other words, it looked, to me, more like Cook mishandled it and it happened to go off Hull's foot, which happened to be moving.


It definitely was a kicked ball: http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=31184741


SDHoops



Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 1162



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 1:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle I'm so happy for you and the rest of the Stanford fans! I didn't get to watch the game on TV but it looks like a good one. Wow!


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8432



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 4:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WfanFrJmp wrote:
undersized_post wrote:
I posted this earlier but it got burried in the thread. Posting again because I'm genuinely curious:

Did you guys think that was a kicked ball? To me it looked like Cook dribbled it off of Hull's foot, which happened to be moving. But not a "kick" in the intentional sense. In other words, it looked, to me, more like Cook mishandled it and it happened to go off Hull's foot, which happened to be moving.


It definitely was a kicked ball: http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=31184741


From the first angle in fast motion it looks like the SC player dribbles it into the defender's foot. At that point I thought it was a good call. But from the later slow motion shot the leg is coming along and the foot hits the ball that is in front of it, which would be an unintentional kick. And after the initial contact it looked like she may have intentionally tried to move it towards her with her foot. Another play that should have been subject to challenge.




Last edited by tfan on 04/03/21 6:51 am; edited 4 times in total
CompSci87



Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 766
Location: Palo Alto, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 5:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stealing from a CardBoard post:

NCAA WBB rules:
Quote:
Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below

Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below. (See Rule 9-15.2.b.)
Art. 2. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the foot. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.


On this one, the player with the ball dribbled it off the defender's foot. Although Lexie's foot was moving, I still didn't think it was a kicked ball. The slo-mo replay was misleading (as they often are) by making it look like Lexie had time to see the ball coming and deliberately kick it.

Plus the announcers were misleading (as they often are) by trying to be amateur refs who can overrule the real refs.


undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 724
Location: midwest/indiana/iowa


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 8:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CompSci87 wrote:
Stealing from a CardBoard post:

NCAA WBB rules:
Quote:
Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below

Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below. (See Rule 9-15.2.b.)
Art. 2. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the foot. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.


On this one, the player with the ball dribbled it off the defender's foot. Although Lexie's foot was moving, I still didn't think it was a kicked ball. The slo-mo replay was misleading (as they often are) by making it look like Lexie had time to see the ball coming and deliberately kick it.

Plus the announcers were misleading (as they often are) by trying to be amateur refs who can overrule the real refs.


This is how I saw it, too.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13505
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 10:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CompSci87 wrote:
Stealing from a CardBoard post:

NCAA WBB rules:
Quote:
Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below

Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below. (See Rule 9-15.2.b.)
Art. 2. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the foot. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.


On this one, the player with the ball dribbled it off the defender's foot. Although Lexie's foot was moving, I still didn't think it was a kicked ball. The slo-mo replay was misleading (as they often are) by making it look like Lexie had time to see the ball coming and deliberately kick it.

Plus the announcers were misleading (as they often are) by trying to be amateur refs who can overrule the real refs.


X _______________________

Even if it was a flubbed call, there several more egregious ones, in that game and others. Razz



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1221
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 3:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CompSci87 wrote:
Stealing from a CardBoard post:

NCAA WBB rules:
Quote:
Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below

Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below. (See Rule 9-15.2.b.)
Art. 2. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the foot. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.


On this one, the player with the ball dribbled it off the defender's foot. Although Lexie's foot was moving, I still didn't think it was a kicked ball. The slo-mo replay was misleading (as they often are) by making it look like Lexie had time to see the ball coming and deliberately kick it.

Plus the announcers were misleading (as they often are) by trying to be amateur refs who can overrule the real refs.


Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

There was no natural movement that the Stanford girl had with her leg extending outward like it did towards the ball. Not to move laterally. Not to regain her balance. Not to take a defensive "stance" as Holly Warlick always preached.

Unless you can show me video that discloses that a general practitioner somehow sneaked onto the court during the game at that precise moment, and gave the Stanford girl a reflex test with a tiny gavel to the knee to cause her leg to suddenly KICK out towards the ball as it did, that was an intentional kick at the ball.

I mean, the video totally exposes it - Cooke was NOT looking at the stanford girl's feet, she was looking into her mid-section. The stanford girl was totally looking at the ball. The stanford girl had JUST GOTTEN THROUGH stepping laterally with her right leg stepping over her left leg, and she did it properly for ANYONE who is looking to step laterally. She LITERALLY just gave everyone a demonstration of how to properly step laterally, to let you know how she does it, when she honestly does it.

A split second later, as Cooke dribbled the ball, the stanford girl suddenly slung her foot outward towards the ball - totally UNLIKE the side-step SHE JUST GOT THROUGH TAKING A SPLIT SECOND EARLIER!! The extremely exaggerated motion of her flinging her leg outward like she did not only resulted in kicking the ball away, but it also made the stanford girl fall to her knees, because SHE DID SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LATERAL MOTION SHE JUST GOT THROUGH DOING A SPLIT SECOND EARLIER, AND IT TOOK HER LEG OUT FROM UNDER HER.

The ball didn't knock a players leg out from under them. No basketball could do that, unless they somehow step ON it. A basketball would otherwise just get knocked away, like in this case.

It was a totally deliberate kicking of the ball, and stanford got away with it. Lets move on......


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13505
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 3:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
CompSci87 wrote:
Stealing from a CardBoard post:

NCAA WBB rules:
Quote:
Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below

Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below. (See Rule 9-15.2.b.)
Art. 2. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the foot. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.


On this one, the player with the ball dribbled it off the defender's foot. Although Lexie's foot was moving, I still didn't think it was a kicked ball. The slo-mo replay was misleading (as they often are) by making it look like Lexie had time to see the ball coming and deliberately kick it.

Plus the announcers were misleading (as they often are) by trying to be amateur refs who can overrule the real refs.


Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

There was no natural movement that the Stanford girl had with her leg extending outward like it did towards the ball. Not to move laterally. Not to regain her balance. Not to take a defensive "stance" as Holly Warlick always preached.

Unless you can show me video that discloses that a general practitioner somehow sneaked onto the court during the game at that precise moment, and gave the Stanford girl a reflex test with a tiny gavel to the knee to cause her leg to suddenly KICK out towards the ball as it did, that was an intentional kick at the ball.

I mean, the video totally exposes it - Cooke was NOT looking at the stanford girl's feet, she was looking into her mid-section. The stanford girl was totally looking at the ball. The stanford girl had JUST GOTTEN THROUGH stepping laterally with her right leg stepping over her left leg, and she did it properly for ANYONE who is looking to step laterally. She LITERALLY just gave everyone a demonstration of how to properly step laterally, to let you know how she does it, when she honestly does it.

A split second later, as Cooke dribbled the ball, the stanford girl suddenly slung her foot outward towards the ball - totally UNLIKE the side-step SHE JUST GOT THROUGH TAKING A SPLIT SECOND EARLIER!! The extremely exaggerated motion of her flinging her leg outward like she did not only resulted in kicking the ball away, but it also made the stanford girl fall to her knees, because SHE DID SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LATERAL MOTION SHE JUST GOT THROUGH DOING A SPLIT SECOND EARLIER, AND IT TOOK HER LEG OUT FROM UNDER HER.

The ball didn't knock a players leg out from under them. No basketball could do that, unless they somehow step ON it. A basketball would otherwise just get knocked away, like in this case.

It was a totally deliberate kicking of the ball, and stanford got away with it. Lets move on......


Nope. Just wasn't. I sorta thought the fould shoulda been called on SC for nearly tripping Lexi with the ball. Laughing Really, though....in the SPLIT second the refs saw what they could see, it was a legit no-call. The overt fouls, etc., not so much. Razz



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1221
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 5:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:


Nope. Just wasn't. I sorta thought the fould shoulda been called on SC for nearly tripping Lexi with the ball. Laughing Really, though....in the SPLIT second the refs saw what they could see, it was a legit no-call. The overt fouls, etc., not so much. Razz


You're Pac-12, so I understand your subjective bias. See an awful lot of it from the CT fanbase. But justifying a foul as a "legit no-call" on the fact that the referees did NOT see the legitimate foul take place, is asinine.

And you do not know for a fact that the referees "saw what they could see", either. We already have a ton of examples of officials looking right at blatant fouls being committed, and swallowing their whistles....


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13505
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/21 9:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
Howee wrote:


Nope. Just wasn't. I sorta thought the foul shoulda been called on SC for nearly tripping Lexi with the ball. Laughing Really, though....in the SPLIT second the refs saw what they could see, it was a legit no-call. The overt fouls, etc., not so much. Razz


You're Pac-12, so I understand your subjective bias. See an awful lot of it from the CT fanbase. But justifying a foul as a "legit no-call" on the fact that the referees did NOT see the legitimate foul take place, is asinine.

There was NO FOUL involved in this play, darlin'. (Maybe you're thinking of the Baylor/UConn hatchet job no-call, perhaps?) And your hyper-analysis of the Hull non-call validates nothing, even with your totally OBjective Gamecock perspective. Razz Laughing
Conway Gamecock wrote:
And you do not know for a fact that the referees "saw what they could see", either.

I know every bit as much or as little as YOU, or any fan that viewed the play and watched the replay. Our opinions may take us in different directions, but....we *see* what we *see*.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 734
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/21 9:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
Howee wrote:


Nope. Just wasn't. I sorta thought the fould shoulda been called on SC for nearly tripping Lexi with the ball. Laughing Really, though....in the SPLIT second the refs saw what they could see, it was a legit no-call. The overt fouls, etc., not so much. Razz


You're Pac-12, so I understand your subjective bias. See an awful lot of it from the CT fanbase. But justifying a foul as a "legit no-call" on the fact that the referees did NOT see the legitimate foul take place, is asinine.

And you do not know for a fact that the referees "saw what they could see", either. We already have a ton of examples of officials looking right at blatant fouls being committed, and swallowing their whistles....



Says the guy with "Gamecock" in his handle who is arguing against a call that did not favor South Carolina. Got it. Laughing


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - Game Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin