The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 64 Arizona State 57 - 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 Arizona State 57 (/thread-13273.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 Arizona State 57 - TheFarm07 - 12-30-2016

(12-30-2016, 09:03 PM)IM in OC link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=16346.msg184433#msg184433 date=1483155808]

Ionescu still hurt for Oregon. Big loss.  But Plum with 44 today. 

Oregon entered the day second in the Pac-12 with 94 made threes, but with guards Sabrina Ionescu and Maite Cazorla sidelined due to injury, the Ducks went just 3-of-5 against UW.

Osahor almost had her 2nd Triple Double of the season 18 points 12 rebounds and 9 assists. She has 65 assists for the season, which has to lead all bigs in WCBB. She leads all D1 players in rebounds with 193(13.8 rpg)

I wonder if Karlie saw her sister play sick last night and said, I better pick it up.
[/quote]

UW is certainly a hand full and we will have to find some way to limit the damage Plum, Osahor and Romero can do and be able to score to keep up with them.

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 Arizona State 57 - 81alum - 12-30-2016

The more detailed box score is out and there are a couple of other tidbits.

Second chance points:  Stanford 8 ASU 21.  That is what 10 extra O-boards will do--translate into 13 extra points.

Points in the paint: Stanford 30 ASU 34. 

Points off turnovers: Stanford 19 ASU 12.  This despite the fact that turnovers were fairly even: Stanford 14 ASU 16.  Not sure what to make of this.

CTT also did not rotate nearly as much as she has earlier in the year.  4 players from ASU had 30 minutes or more.

Karlie played all 40 minutes and Erica 37.  Marta got 26 compared with Bri with 18.  So Bri was point for 14 of those and a shooting guard for 4. 

I am struck by how important Carrington was in her 6 minutes.  Draining a three when the game is in doubt is a lot harder than when you are ahead.  Her six minutes were at a critical time in the second half and she scored 5 and collected 2 rebounds.

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 Arizona State 57 - M T - 12-31-2016

(12-30-2016, 06:07 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Let no one say this game was decided by the refs. Refs did a fine job, first using video to reverse a mistaken out of bounds call, then calling the foul on McCall's shot. Both calls were roundly booed by the home crowd but were clearly correct.

Foolish move by the Arizona ASU center to come out to challenge McCall at the 3-point line with her arm stuck way out. It was a smart, NBA-like play by McCall to take a shot swinging through the arm to create a clear foul.

I do think you are right.  I do not think that McCall swung her arm intentionally to get a foul -- I think she took a natural shot.  But then I looked at how she got her feet under the shot.  McCall did step toward the onrushing defender rather than stay where she was (as Karlie would have) to take the shot. 

The announcers felt the play, to give McCall a 3pt attempt, was an interesting & good call.  It certainly worked well.  Fingall's screen did get her free, while Fingall's player was slow to switch to McCall going away from the basket.  McCall was able to get the ball and to have a reasonable chance to shoot it within the three seconds available.    But what if she missed?  Fingall did a screen to get McCall free, but she didn't switch to blocking her opponent out.  Karlie, for reasons I don't understand, stayed out of bounds.  Brittany was way on the other side of the court, as was Bri.  At least Bri broke toward the basket for a potential rebound.  What if McCall was covered?  She had no outlet for a second opportunity to get off a quick shot

There appear to be multiple technical (and judgement) errors by the officials on the reversed call.

After calling the ball out on Brittany, the ref signaled that the 30 second clock (then at 7) should be reset.  I do not understand that.  Three seconds earlier the ASU shooter missed the rim (the ball continued its trajectory and the same rate of backspin, and the net didn't move visibly);  no ref signaled that the clock should be reset at the time.  It was only after the ball went out of bounds that the ref made the signal.  The shot clock (on the TV version of the shot clock was reset to 30). 

Was the official making some sort of call that the immediate play (out of  bounds) required the shot clock reset?  Was the official attempting to correct an earlier error?  Was the official indicating what he felt should be reviewed?

I found no rule supporting such a reset (without monitor review) unless the ref was ruling that an OBVIOUS error had been made:
Quote:When an obvious mistake by the shot-clock operator has occurred
in failing to start, stop, set or reset the shot clock or when a shot clock has
malfunctioned, the mistake or the malfunctioning problem may be corrected
in the shot-clock period in which it occurred only when the official has
definite information relative to the mistake or malfunctioning problem and
the time involved. -- 2016 & 2017 NCAA Women's Basketball Rules
If the official was trying to rule that the prior shot obviously had hit the rim, I believe the shot clock should not have been reset to 30, but should have been corrected to about 27.  (Had the official ruled that Brittany had intentionally fisted the ball out of bounds, the clock should have been reset to 15.)

However, if monitor review is available, this rule can be used: (emphasis mine)
Quote:Section 2. Instant Replay—Voluntary Use (Except Where Noted)
Art 1. Officials may use such available equipment only in the following
situations:
2. Determine whether the shot clock malfunctioned or a timing mistake
occurred in failing to properly start, stop, set or reset the shot clock. The
malfunction or mistake may only be corrected in the shot clock period
in which it occurred. Any activity after the mistake or malfunction
has been committed and until it has been rectified shall be canceled,
excluding a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul or any technical foul.
So, if the official believed that the shot may have hit the rim and needed to be reviewed, and review bore that out, then the situation should have been reset back to when the error was made (when the ball hit the rim).  There would be no rebound and no out of bounds on Brittany or the ASU player.  I presume that this would have resulted in a tie-ball call (as the ball was in no one's possession) with about 51 seconds on the game clock.  [This rule seems imperfect.  A failure to reset the shot clock should only apply if the offense regains possession after the shot, and the mistake should be judged as of that time, not at the instant that the ball touched the rim, when it is in no one's possession.]

Judging by the amount of time it took to do a review, I suspect that the officials simply looked at the out of bounds call, and felt that the alleged failure to reset the shot clock was irrelevant once the ruling was made that it was Stanford's ball.  If they did, I believe they made an incorrect (albeit reasonable) interpretation of the rules.  However, it is possible that the officials did review the shot and decided it didn't hit the rim (overturning one of the ref's two on-court calls) and then looked at the out of bounds call (overturning the other call by the ref)


Re: WBB: Stanford 64 Arizona State 57 - 81alum - 12-31-2016

(12-31-2016, 12:28 AM)MT link Wrote:After calling the ball out on Brittany, the ref signaled that the 30 second clock (then at 7) should be reset.  I do not understand that. 
I noticed this too and thought it odd at the time, but figured that I did not understand the rules well enough.  I'm glad you researched it.  But if they had awarded the ball to ASU, how much time would they have put on the shot clock?  Maybe we will never know.

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 Arizona State 57 - M T - 12-31-2016

This was a character-building win by the team.  A tight game against a good opponent that went down to the wire.  We clearly played better in the last two minutes, which made all the difference.

I would give credit to the defense for the win.  There were a number of shot clock violations against ASU.  Good job!

Marta certainly was wearing her shooting cap today.  8 shots in 26 minutes.  Unfortunately, Marta mostly tried to do drive & layups against much taller players, so several of her shots were blocked.  Of her 5 misses, 3 were blocked.  She never tried to stop & pop (which would have been effective today) or shoot from the arc (I don't remember ever thinking she had an open 3).  Her shooting effort was better, but not yet effective.  I winced at each of her 3 turnovers.  I expect her to be a better passer, but she passes like she must practice against slower players.  There's a great, tight view of one of her turnovers where you can see her eyes evaluating the opponent before making the pass, and watch the opponent react to her pass to deflect & take possession of it.

I appreciate that Karlie displayed an offensive threat that we haven't seen often.  She keeps improving and obviously is one of our strengths.  I also believe she is one of our best defenders.

Players whose shots were blocked:  Marta: 3; Brittany: 2; Bri: 1; Nadia: 1; Erica: 1  (Total 8)
Blocks by these teams against Stanford:  Texas: 2;  Gonzaga: 5;  TN: 5; Purdue: 2

Rebounding:  Stanford on offense:  12 of 32: 37.5%;  defense: 19 of 41: 46.3%  Ouch.  When was the last time we got fewer DR than our opponent got OR?  ASU was stronger or more aggressive in achieving and holding positions around the basket.  While Dornstauder is 6'4", ASU's next tallest was generally 6'1". We generally had two 6'3" players.  Erica outrebounded Dornstauder.

ASU had 10 more offensive rebounds than Stanford, but 2 more turnovers, resulting in 11 more shots.  Our saving grace was a better FG% (esp. 3FG%) so that FG points differential was 2 points in our favor and was padded by 6 extra FTA (ASU had 1 more PF than Stanford) giving us 5 more FT.  (There was no parade of foul shots at the end of the game, so the PF & FTA were not influenced by that.)