WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - 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 66 -- Oregon 62 (/thread-22975.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 66 -- Oregon 62 (/thread-22975.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - UltimateCard - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 05:12 AM)81alum Wrote: Highlights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7WH_tGoY4w&t=170s
The FBC has a Tara presser up but unfortunately it is from the first Oregon game. I can't find a press conference from yesterday.
Not the presser but some nice words from Tara in the locker room— gotta love the love being spread around. https://fb.watch/bj--KN3ZAE/
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - spike5882 - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 07:21 PM)UltimateCard Wrote:(02-21-2022, 05:12 AM)81alum Wrote: Highlights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7WH_tGoY4w&t=170s
The FBC has a Tara presser up but unfortunately it is from the first Oregon game. I can't find a press conference from yesterday.
Not the presser but some nice words from Tara in the locker room— gotta love the love being spread around. https://fb.watch/bj--KN3ZAE/
Love the locker room video. Such a great vibe from all of them!
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - Erika - 02-21-2022
Just posted on You Tube:
Tara's Press Conf.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - Card10Fan - 02-21-2022
Thanks for posting. Haley so poised and answered her questions well per usual.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - jonnyss - 02-21-2022
thanks for posting. i wonder if someone could remind tara and players to point the microphone at the person asking the question so the audience can hear the question as well. or else have 2 mics.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - 81alum - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 08:07 PM)Card10Fan Wrote: Thanks for posting. Haley so poised and answered her questions well per usual.Yes she was. It may be minor from the standpoint of sports fans, but so often I am proud not only of the way our young women play, but the way they interview.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - joemontes - 02-21-2022
Definitely a gutsy win engineered by an uber-talented gutsy player.
And I agree that this come-from-behind victory from a 4th quarter double digit deficit will do them good moving forward, I think more so than if they had lost this game.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - BillBradley - 02-22-2022
Just watched the 4th quarter again. SMH with how the calls went down the stretch. IMO, the following all should have been no calls:
1) Sabally's 4th. Brink makes a low block move, there is some small body contact but not much there. Arms were straight up and she didn't swipe down. Pretty good d IMO. Sent their best post to the bench.
2) Brink's 4th on a flop by Watson (?). All Cam did was raise her left arm. Nothing to call there.
3) Pinto's foul on Haley's drive where she made the incredible shot from the ground. Pinto moved right with her and there was contact right to her chest. She was actually in position for a charge, but Haley didn't throw a shoulder or anything. Just let it go. Give Haley the bucket and move on.
4) Brink's 5th on Sabally. For sure Brink has to get smarter and not go for too much ball pressure and reaching. Really dumb. But it didn't impact anything. Ticky tack. Just let it go.
In general, I think the refs should let more things go down the stretch. Let the players decide the outcome and get out of their way.
At a higher level, I want the women's game to be more physical and I think all the players want that too.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - teejers1 - 02-22-2022
(02-22-2022, 11:04 AM)BillBradley Wrote: Just watched the 4th quarter again. SMH with how the calls went down the stretch. IMO, the following all should have been no calls:
1) Sabally's 4th. Brink makes a low block move, there is some small body contact but not much there. Arms were straight up and she didn't swipe down. Pretty good d IMO. Sent their best post to the bench.
2) Brink's 4th on a flop by Watson (?). All Cam did was raise her left arm. Nothing to call there.
3) Pinto's foul on Haley's drive where she made the incredible shot from the ground. Pinto moved right with her and there was contact right to her chest. She was actually in position for a charge, but Haley didn't throw a shoulder or anything. Just let it go. Give Haley the bucket and move on.
4) Brink's 5th on Sabally. For sure Brink has to get smarter and not go for too much ball pressure and reaching. Really dumb. But it didn't impact anything. Ticky tack. Just let it go.
In general, I think the refs should let more things go down the stretch. Let the players decide the outcome and get out of their way.
At a higher level, I want the women's game to be more physical and I think all the players want that too.
The exasperating thing about Brink's 5th foul is that it was 25 feet from the hoop and Sabally was not a remote threat from there. I agree the refs could have let it go, but the real question is what was Brink thinking at that point in the game? I suspect it was a bit of frustration at having had limited court time due to foul trouble and wanting to "make something happen." But Cam is so talented that she does that "falling out of bed"/in normal course of play. Need Cam to be a bit smarter so she can stay on the court longer.
And speaking of bigs, you have to like Kiki's hustle around the hoop. From FT line in, it's not easy to get by people sufficiently to get a shot off, yet she does that remarkably well. My favorite play, though, was her hustle in transition for a layup (on assist from Jones). Love it when our bigs beat opponents' bigs down the court for a layup.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - M T - 02-22-2022
(02-22-2022, 11:04 AM)BillBradley Wrote: Just watched the 4th quarter again. SMH with how the calls went down the stretch. IMO, the following all should have been no calls:
..... Ticky tack. Just let it go.
In general, I think the refs should let more things go down the stretch. Let the players decide the outcome and get out of their way.
At a higher level, I want the women's game to be more physical and I think all the players want that too.
I certainly hear most often that coaches & players & announcers want a consistently called game. IMO, the game should be called the same no matter in what conference it is played, whether it is the NC game, whether the score is 100-30 or 50-50, or whether it is in the first or last minute. The rules try to define a consistent game. It appears to me that the officials (and certainly the TV announcers) do not subscribe to this.
Indeed, this year's rule book has, as the first point of emphasis, "Enforcing the Rules as Written".
Quote:Enforcing the rules as written is a point of emphasis again after a two-year hiatus� The rules committee wants to ensure that officials, coaches, players, administrators, coordinators, and conferences focus on the playing rules as found in the rules book and to support officials in their enforcement of all playing rules� When the playing rules are enforced as written, it lends itself to consistency from game to game, division to division, and region to region� The playing rules are designed to create a balance of play, equally favorable conditions for both the offense and the defense, and provide reasonable safety protection for players; without the consistency in the application of the rules, the balance the rules committee seeks to provide through the playing rules is not accomplished
Officials are tasked with ensuring that the competing teams play within the rules� There is no room for personal philosophies or using “game management” to ignore enforcing a playing rule�
Other points of emphasis: Faking fouls, traveling, legal guarding position, post play (3 seconds & clearing the lane with 2 feet out, not just one), contact on & by the ball handler/dribbler, sporting behavior/conduct (including coaches out of the coaching box & onto the court)
The sections under "Officiating Guidelines" are bench decorum, screening, displacement, ball handler or dribbler, cutting, rebounding, officiating intentional and disqualifying fouls.
Quote:While continual progress has been made in nearly all aspects of the game that involve traveling, particular emphasis is still needed in these areas: the pre-dribble travel (lifting and replanting the pivot foot, split-feet, and running start), the spin move to the basket, the “Euro” step, and perimeter shooters taking an extra “hop” just after they receive the ball or just before releasing the try�
I have yet to see an official even warn a coach about being on the floor, despite this being a point of emphasis for several years.
I expect some of you will say "Those are ticky-tack. Call the game as written, and the flow of the game will be disrupted." (and, instead, call it by the unwritten, mental model of the way "I" think it should be called.) I would say that the players (& coaches) will adapt, and the game will not be interrupted once they learn what will be called and what won't. At this time, the players have adapted to the extent that the rules committee feels it needs to make an emphasis on certain rules.
I also find it interesting that there is no special guidance on fouls called while one player is shooting and the other is blocking.
I also can't find "ticky-tack" in the rules.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - crackpot - 02-22-2022
(02-22-2022, 12:19 PM)M T Wrote: I have yet to see an official even warn a coach about being on the floor, despite this being a point of emphasis for several years.
Heh.
https://youtu.be/mCx09q2QNXc?t=2530
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - BillBradley - 02-22-2022
(02-22-2022, 12:19 PM)M T Wrote:I understand the point and I agree this stuff can be subjective and difficult to apply consistently. But here's an analogy to why enforcing things to the letter of the law can mess things up, and how an "unwritten mental model" works better. Highway patrol could, per the letter of the law, pull over 95% of the drivers and we would never get anywhere on the freeway. So they don't. They apply their own mental model within a larger framework and a common goal of keeping the roads safe. Their definition of ticky tack is the minivan that is going 68 in a 65 in the middle of the day. That's a no call. They might pull over a car that's swerving at midnight and going 68 in a 65. That's different. And it makes sense. Similar judgement can be applied in basketball. If it doesn't effect the play, and there's no obvious call, let it go. Why ring up Brink twice 15 feet from the basket when the play hasn't been affected and no advantage was created? It's not consistent, because players do that stuff all the time. Just let it go all the time. If she reaches and knocks the ball away, it's a different situation. She's created an advantage. So, if she did hit the arm as she knocked the ball away, then call the foul.(02-22-2022, 11:04 AM)BillBradley Wrote: Just watched the 4th quarter again. SMH with how the calls went down the stretch. IMO, the following all should have been no calls:
..... Ticky tack. Just let it go.
In general, I think the refs should let more things go down the stretch. Let the players decide the outcome and get out of their way.
At a higher level, I want the women's game to be more physical and I think all the players want that too.
I certainly hear most often that coaches & players & announcers want a consistently called game. IMO, the game should be called the same no matter in what conference it is played, whether it is the NC game, whether the score is 100-30 or 50-50, or whether it is in the first or last minute. The rules try to define a consistent game. It appears to me that the officials (and certainly the TV announcers) do not subscribe to this.
Indeed, this year's rule book has, as the first point of emphasis, "Enforcing the Rules as Written".
Quote:Enforcing the rules as written is a point of emphasis again after a two-year hiatus� The rules committee wants to ensure that officials, coaches, players, administrators, coordinators, and conferences focus on the playing rules as found in the rules book and to support officials in their enforcement of all playing rules� When the playing rules are enforced as written, it lends itself to consistency from game to game, division to division, and region to region� The playing rules are designed to create a balance of play, equally favorable conditions for both the offense and the defense, and provide reasonable safety protection for players; without the consistency in the application of the rules, the balance the rules committee seeks to provide through the playing rules is not accomplished
Officials are tasked with ensuring that the competing teams play within the rules� There is no room for personal philosophies or using “game management” to ignore enforcing a playing rule�
Other points of emphasis: Faking fouls, traveling, legal guarding position, post play (3 seconds & clearing the lane with 2 feet out, not just one), contact on & by the ball handler/dribbler, sporting behavior/conduct (including coaches out of the coaching box & onto the court)
The sections under "Officiating Guidelines" are bench decorum, screening, displacement, ball handler or dribbler, cutting, rebounding, officiating intentional and disqualifying fouls.
Quote:While continual progress has been made in nearly all aspects of the game that involve traveling, particular emphasis is still needed in these areas: the pre-dribble travel (lifting and replanting the pivot foot, split-feet, and running start), the spin move to the basket, the “Euro” step, and perimeter shooters taking an extra “hop” just after they receive the ball or just before releasing the try�
I have yet to see an official even warn a coach about being on the floor, despite this being a point of emphasis for several years.
I expect some of you will say "Those are ticky-tack. Call the game as written, and the flow of the game will be disrupted." (and, instead, call it by the unwritten, mental model of the way "I" think it should be called.) I would say that the players (& coaches) will adapt, and the game will not be interrupted once they learn what will be called and what won't. At this time, the players have adapted to the extent that the rules committee feels it needs to make an emphasis on certain rules.
I also find it interesting that there is no special guidance on fouls called while one player is shooting and the other is blocking.
I also can't find "ticky-tack" in the rules.
I've mentioned this before, but Cardboard faithful will surely remember the end of the first half in the South Carolina final four game last year. The refs called a similar foul on Aliyah Boston out on the perimeter with 5 seconds left in the first half. Feel free to pull it up and watch it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un4J3Q7nw1Q
Just like Brink's 5th foul vs. Oregon, you can say "what a stupid foul". My take is more, "what a stupid whistle". Seriously. Looked like pretty good D to me with little contact if any and no advantage was created. But the official decides it's a "me time" moment and somehow decides a foul should be called. At the time, it didn't seem like much. Sure turned out to be game-altering whistle though.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - WBB fan - 02-22-2022
(02-22-2022, 02:50 PM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-22-2022, 12:19 PM)M T Wrote:I understand the point and I agree this stuff can be subjective and difficult to apply consistently. But here's an analogy to why enforcing things to the letter of the law can mess things up, and how an "unwritten mental model" works better. Highway patrol could, per the letter of the law, pull over 95% of the drivers and we would never get anywhere on the freeway. So they don't. They apply their own mental model within a larger framework and a common goal of keeping the roads safe. Their definition of ticky tack is the minivan that is going 68 in a 65 in the middle of the day. That's a no call. They might pull over a car that's swerving at midnight and going 68 in a 65. That's different. And it makes sense. Similar judgement can be applied in basketball. If it doesn't effect the play, and there's no obvious call, let it go. Why ring up Brink twice 15 feet from the basket when the play hasn't been affected and no advantage was created? It's not consistent, because players do that stuff all the time. Just let it go all the time. If she reaches and knocks the ball away, it's a different situation. She's created an advantage. So, if she did hit the arm as she knocked the ball away, then call the foul.(02-22-2022, 11:04 AM)BillBradley Wrote: Just watched the 4th quarter again. SMH with how the calls went down the stretch. IMO, the following all should have been no calls:
..... Ticky tack. Just let it go.
In general, I think the refs should let more things go down the stretch. Let the players decide the outcome and get out of their way.
At a higher level, I want the women's game to be more physical and I think all the players want that too.
I certainly hear most often that coaches & players & announcers want a consistently called game. IMO, the game should be called the same no matter in what conference it is played, whether it is the NC game, whether the score is 100-30 or 50-50, or whether it is in the first or last minute. The rules try to define a consistent game. It appears to me that the officials (and certainly the TV announcers) do not subscribe to this.
Indeed, this year's rule book has, as the first point of emphasis, "Enforcing the Rules as Written".
Quote:Enforcing the rules as written is a point of emphasis again after a two-year hiatus� The rules committee wants to ensure that officials, coaches, players, administrators, coordinators, and conferences focus on the playing rules as found in the rules book and to support officials in their enforcement of all playing rules� When the playing rules are enforced as written, it lends itself to consistency from game to game, division to division, and region to region� The playing rules are designed to create a balance of play, equally favorable conditions for both the offense and the defense, and provide reasonable safety protection for players; without the consistency in the application of the rules, the balance the rules committee seeks to provide through the playing rules is not accomplished
Officials are tasked with ensuring that the competing teams play within the rules� There is no room for personal philosophies or using “game management” to ignore enforcing a playing rule�
Other points of emphasis: Faking fouls, traveling, legal guarding position, post play (3 seconds & clearing the lane with 2 feet out, not just one), contact on & by the ball handler/dribbler, sporting behavior/conduct (including coaches out of the coaching box & onto the court)
The sections under "Officiating Guidelines" are bench decorum, screening, displacement, ball handler or dribbler, cutting, rebounding, officiating intentional and disqualifying fouls.
Quote:While continual progress has been made in nearly all aspects of the game that involve traveling, particular emphasis is still needed in these areas: the pre-dribble travel (lifting and replanting the pivot foot, split-feet, and running start), the spin move to the basket, the “Euro” step, and perimeter shooters taking an extra “hop” just after they receive the ball or just before releasing the try�
I have yet to see an official even warn a coach about being on the floor, despite this being a point of emphasis for several years.
I expect some of you will say "Those are ticky-tack. Call the game as written, and the flow of the game will be disrupted." (and, instead, call it by the unwritten, mental model of the way "I" think it should be called.) I would say that the players (& coaches) will adapt, and the game will not be interrupted once they learn what will be called and what won't. At this time, the players have adapted to the extent that the rules committee feels it needs to make an emphasis on certain rules.
I also find it interesting that there is no special guidance on fouls called while one player is shooting and the other is blocking.
I also can't find "ticky-tack" in the rules.
I've mentioned this before, but Cardboard faithful will surely remember the end of the first half in the South Carolina final four game last year. The refs called a similar foul on Aliyah Boston out on the perimeter with 5 seconds left in the first half. Feel free to pull it up and watch it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un4J3Q7nw1Q
Just like Brink's 5th foul vs. Oregon, you can say "what a stupid foul". My take is more, "what a stupid whistle". Seriously. Looked like pretty good D to me with little contact if any and no advantage was created. But the official decides it's a "me time" moment and somehow decides a foul should be called. At the time, it didn't seem like much. Sure turned out to be game-altering whistle though.
Good analysis of the situations, all makes sense to me. I agree!
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - teejers1 - 02-22-2022
(02-22-2022, 02:50 PM)BillBradley Wrote: I understand the point and I agree this stuff can be subjective and difficult to apply consistently. But here's an analogy to why enforcing things to the letter of the law can mess things up, and how an "unwritten mental model" works better. Highway patrol could, per the letter of the law, pull over 95% of the drivers and we would never get anywhere on the freeway. So they don't. They apply their own mental model within a larger framework and a common goal of keeping the roads safe. Their definition of ticky tack is the minivan that is going 68 in a 65 in the middle of the day. That's a no call. They might pull over a car that's swerving at midnight and going 68 in a 65. That's different. And it makes sense. Similar judgement can be applied in basketball. If it doesn't effect the play, and there's no obvious call, let it go. Why ring up Brink twice 15 feet from the basket when the play hasn't been affected and no advantage was created? It's not consistent, because players do that stuff all the time. Just let it go all the time. If she reaches and knocks the ball away, it's a different situation. She's created an advantage. So, if she did hit the arm as she knocked the ball away, then call the foul.
Just like Brink's 5th foul vs. Oregon, you can say "what a stupid foul". My take is more, "what a stupid whistle". Seriously. Looked like pretty good D to me with little contact if any and no advantage was created. But the official decides it's a "me time" moment and somehow decides a foul should be called. At the time, it didn't seem like much. Sure turned out to be game-altering whistle though.
I have much less sympathy for the fouler when he or she is doing something that is not smart . . . like guarding an opposing big in his/her jersey 20+ feet from the hoop. You say "what a stupid whistle." Yeah, I can see that. However, my first reaction is: what a stupid decision in the first instance - why even invite a ref to have a "look at me" moment in that situation? Thus, while I generally agree with the notion of no harm, no foul so let it go, I actually think there might be some net benefit to having close calls in ridiculous places being made - it will discourage defenders from putting themselves in ridiculous places in the future.
P.S. Boston guarding Prechtel tightly there made some sense because Big Red could have easily knocked down a trey from there. OTOH, Boston was overly agreessive, imo, (arm reaches/hacks) when Prechtel was looking to pass the ball further out. Again, not the best decision.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - ca245 - 02-22-2022
(02-22-2022, 03:00 PM)WBB fan Wrote:I would say, both a stupid foul and a stupid whistle. Sabally was standing at the 3 pt line; there was no need for Brink to swing her arms down towards Sabally's arms - what could she gain by doing that? I couldn't tell if Brink actually hit Sabally's arm; if she did, the contact was slight. Much stronger contact often goes uncalled. The teaching lesson here is, the action is taking place out in the open, with two players standing still and close to the ref. It's not a bang-bang action in a scrum of players. Whatever you do is highly visible. Don't give the ref a chance to blow the whistle.(02-22-2022, 02:50 PM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-22-2022, 12:19 PM)M T Wrote:I understand the point and I agree this stuff can be subjective and difficult to apply consistently. But here's an analogy to why enforcing things to the letter of the law can mess things up, and how an "unwritten mental model" works better. Highway patrol could, per the letter of the law, pull over 95% of the drivers and we would never get anywhere on the freeway. So they don't. They apply their own mental model within a larger framework and a common goal of keeping the roads safe. Their definition of ticky tack is the minivan that is going 68 in a 65 in the middle of the day. That's a no call. They might pull over a car that's swerving at midnight and going 68 in a 65. That's different. And it makes sense. Similar judgement can be applied in basketball. If it doesn't effect the play, and there's no obvious call, let it go. Why ring up Brink twice 15 feet from the basket when the play hasn't been affected and no advantage was created? It's not consistent, because players do that stuff all the time. Just let it go all the time. If she reaches and knocks the ball away, it's a different situation. She's created an advantage. So, if she did hit the arm as she knocked the ball away, then call the foul.(02-22-2022, 11:04 AM)BillBradley Wrote: Just watched the 4th quarter again. SMH with how the calls went down the stretch. IMO, the following all should have been no calls:
..... Ticky tack. Just let it go.
In general, I think the refs should let more things go down the stretch. Let the players decide the outcome and get out of their way.
At a higher level, I want the women's game to be more physical and I think all the players want that too.
I certainly hear most often that coaches & players & announcers want a consistently called game. IMO, the game should be called the same no matter in what conference it is played, whether it is the NC game, whether the score is 100-30 or 50-50, or whether it is in the first or last minute. The rules try to define a consistent game. It appears to me that the officials (and certainly the TV announcers) do not subscribe to this.
Indeed, this year's rule book has, as the first point of emphasis, "Enforcing the Rules as Written".
Quote:Enforcing the rules as written is a point of emphasis again after a two-year hiatus� The rules committee wants to ensure that officials, coaches, players, administrators, coordinators, and conferences focus on the playing rules as found in the rules book and to support officials in their enforcement of all playing rules� When the playing rules are enforced as written, it lends itself to consistency from game to game, division to division, and region to region� The playing rules are designed to create a balance of play, equally favorable conditions for both the offense and the defense, and provide reasonable safety protection for players; without the consistency in the application of the rules, the balance the rules committee seeks to provide through the playing rules is not accomplished
Officials are tasked with ensuring that the competing teams play within the rules� There is no room for personal philosophies or using “game management” to ignore enforcing a playing rule�
Other points of emphasis: Faking fouls, traveling, legal guarding position, post play (3 seconds & clearing the lane with 2 feet out, not just one), contact on & by the ball handler/dribbler, sporting behavior/conduct (including coaches out of the coaching box & onto the court)
The sections under "Officiating Guidelines" are bench decorum, screening, displacement, ball handler or dribbler, cutting, rebounding, officiating intentional and disqualifying fouls.
Quote:While continual progress has been made in nearly all aspects of the game that involve traveling, particular emphasis is still needed in these areas: the pre-dribble travel (lifting and replanting the pivot foot, split-feet, and running start), the spin move to the basket, the “Euro” step, and perimeter shooters taking an extra “hop” just after they receive the ball or just before releasing the try�
I have yet to see an official even warn a coach about being on the floor, despite this being a point of emphasis for several years.
I expect some of you will say "Those are ticky-tack. Call the game as written, and the flow of the game will be disrupted." (and, instead, call it by the unwritten, mental model of the way "I" think it should be called.) I would say that the players (& coaches) will adapt, and the game will not be interrupted once they learn what will be called and what won't. At this time, the players have adapted to the extent that the rules committee feels it needs to make an emphasis on certain rules.
I also find it interesting that there is no special guidance on fouls called while one player is shooting and the other is blocking.
I also can't find "ticky-tack" in the rules.
I've mentioned this before, but Cardboard faithful will surely remember the end of the first half in the South Carolina final four game last year. The refs called a similar foul on Aliyah Boston out on the perimeter with 5 seconds left in the first half. Feel free to pull it up and watch it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un4J3Q7nw1Q
Just like Brink's 5th foul vs. Oregon, you can say "what a stupid foul". My take is more, "what a stupid whistle". Seriously. Looked like pretty good D to me with little contact if any and no advantage was created. But the official decides it's a "me time" moment and somehow decides a foul should be called. At the time, it didn't seem like much. Sure turned out to be game-altering whistle though.
Good analysis of the situations, all makes sense to me. I agree!
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - qwerty49 - 02-23-2022
(02-21-2022, 08:41 PM)jonnyss Wrote: thanks for posting. i wonder if someone could remind tara and players to point the microphone at the person asking the question so the audience can hear the question as well. or else have 2 mics.
That seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Even the football pressers have this problem. Whoever runs press relations for the AD is definitely snoozing on this one. Even a high-school garage band can afford $75 for a second mic.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - CompSci87 - 02-23-2022
(02-23-2022, 02:09 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(02-21-2022, 08:41 PM)jonnyss Wrote: thanks for posting. i wonder if someone could remind tara and players to point the microphone at the person asking the question so the audience can hear the question as well. or else have 2 mics.
That seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Even the football pressers have this problem. Whoever runs press relations for the AD is definitely snoozing on this one. Even a high-school garage band can afford $75 for a second mic.
I imagine they are thinking of the event as just a press conference, where all that matters is that the coach and players hear the questions and the press hear the answers. We superfans who watch the recording online are an afterthought.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - acerep - 02-23-2022
My report on the two Oregon games is on the Fast Break Club website, www.stanfordfbc.org.
I also recommend Warren Grimes' report on Stanford's statistical dominance in the Pac-12. It's under "Stories of the Season" on the right side of the site.
(02-23-2022, 04:03 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(02-23-2022, 02:09 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(02-21-2022, 08:41 PM)jonnyss Wrote: thanks for posting. i wonder if someone could remind tara and players to point the microphone at the person asking the question so the audience can hear the question as well. or else have 2 mics.
That seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Even the football pressers have this problem. Whoever runs press relations for the AD is definitely snoozing on this one. Even a high-school garage band can afford $75 for a second mic.
I imagine they are thinking of the event as just a press conference, where all that matters is that the coach and players hear the questions and the press hear the answers. We superfans who watch the recording online are an afterthought.
RE: WBB: Stanford 66 -- Oregon 62 - jonnyss - 02-23-2022
(02-22-2022, 02:50 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Just like Brink's 5th foul vs. Oregon, you can say "what a stupid foul". My take is more, "what a stupid whistle". Seriously. Looked like pretty good D to me with little contact if any and no advantage was created. But the official decides it's a "me time" moment and somehow decides a foul should be called. At the time, it didn't seem like much. Sure turned out to be game-altering whistle though.
imo we are very lucky that the refs didn't whistle cam for swiping down as aari macdonald took her last-second desperation shot in the national championship game.
for all the knocks on haley's loose defense, she swats the ball sideways into the stands - with authority - when she blocks a shot. cam swipes down.
(02-23-2022, 04:03 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(02-23-2022, 02:09 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(02-21-2022, 08:41 PM)jonnyss Wrote: thanks for posting. i wonder if someone could remind tara and players to point the microphone at the person asking the question so the audience can hear the question as well. or else have 2 mics.
That seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Even the football pressers have this problem. Whoever runs press relations for the AD is definitely snoozing on this one. Even a high-school garage band can afford $75 for a second mic.
I imagine they are thinking of the event as just a press conference, where all that matters is that the coach and players hear the questions and the press hear the answers. We superfans who watch the recording online are an afterthought.
if so, then they are years out of date. there's no longer a print press reporting on what the coach says after the game. we're lucky if the print press runs a story on the game itself. almost all of the "reporting" is online and includes videos. if you're going to include videos, please watch your audio feed as well. where is our "boom operator" when we need her?
my personal take is that it's no different than the questions at any conference presentation. unless the organizers provide a second mike or the presenter takes the time to repeat the question from the audience, the presenter speaks to the questioner, and the rest of the audience has no clue what question was asked. in my experience, the organizers provide a second mike about half the time, and it's a godsend.