The CardBoard
WWP: Stanford v UCLA - 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: WWP: Stanford v UCLA (/thread-7078.html)


WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Viking_Guy - 04-27-2014

Just about to sprint here:

http://pac-12.com/videos/university-southern-california

UCB defeated ASU 8-7 in sudden death for third.

SC hammered SJSU 21-9 for fifth.  Which likely means SC as the #3 seed, making this game important to avoid them until the final.

VG


Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Viking_Guy - 04-27-2014

Halftime, UCLA leads 5-3.

Game started fast, with the score knotted at 3-3 with a few minutes left in the first period.  Then Stanford's offense just stopped - they seemed unable to get anything from 2 meters, so everything was a 5-6 meter shot.  They also seemed to be throwing a few really bad passes.

That being said, the difference appears to me to be UCLA's two meter play - either drawing ejections or scoring directly.  IIRC, three of their first four goals were scored in 6 on 5, and the lone exception was a contra foul called against Stanford in the middle of a breakaway, resulting in a 3 on 1 heading the other way for the Bruins that they converted.

Just to make things worse, Stanford had a late half 1 v 1 breakaway, and couldn't convert.

Hope the offense picks up.

VG


Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Viking_Guy - 04-27-2014

5-5 early in the fourth period.  Stanford's defense is really extending, but has been better about getting to the 2-meter player and doubling fast since halftime.

Let's go Card!

VG


Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - CompSci87 - 04-27-2014

Stanford wins 6-5!

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Griffins78 - 04-27-2014

You are quick!

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - 81alum - 04-27-2014

So we win!  Now, for someone who knows nothing about this game, why on earth did we take a shot on goal when we had the ball and the lead with 30 seconds left.  Why not just run out the clock?  As it turned out, we gave the ball back to UCLA and let them have a chance to tie it up.

There must be something basic that I don't understand.

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Brainiac_Infinite - 04-27-2014

shot clock violation...

Stanford 6 UCLA 5 - Viking_Guy - 04-27-2014

Just after that last post, Stanford drew a 6-5 chance, and converted on one of those narrow angle shots. Stanford swung the ball from the far corner around to the near post, where slow defensive rotation leads to a 2 v 1, defender commits up top to the shot, and the pass finds the narrow angle shooter who sends the ball low inside the near post under the goalie's hands as she slides over.  Keeper had to stay centered against the shot from the player with the better angle, and couldn't get across the cage fast enough.

Then they hung on with REALLY tough field defense - I don't think it's very common for a team of the caliber of UCLA to be held scoreless for the entire second half, but the Bruins rarely got a good look, and several times the last ten seconds of a UCLA shot clock was taken up by the player with the ball backing away toward the halfline under ferocious pressure.

Congratulations to the seniors!

VG


Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - 81alum - 04-27-2014

(04-27-2014, 03:58 PM)Brainiac_Infinite link Wrote:shot clock violation...
What is the clock in water polo?  It seemed like on other possessions we had the ball for a lot longer than on that last possession.

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - CompSci87 - 04-27-2014

I don't know anything about the sport either, but Google tells me the shot clock is 30 seconds.

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Viking_Guy - 04-27-2014

It's a 30 second shot clock, but the shot clock can be reset by (1) a shot that goes out off the keeper (where the offensive team gets a corner ball in), NOT a deflection by a field player; or (2) an exclusion foul, NOT an ordinary foul.  That last is why you'll often see teams fire long shots late in the clock, and make sure to miss high or wide, or you'll see teams late in the clock simply dump the ball into the corner or toward the sideline away from the keeper, so that the keeper can't initiate the counter-attack as rapidly.

You'll also often see perimeter players take off the other way with about 3-4 seconds left on the clock, knowing that the only option for the offensive team is a quick shot, and not any complicated series of passes or even a solid ball into the post.

VG


Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - M T - 04-27-2014

(04-27-2014, 04:01 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=Brainiac_Infinite link=topic=9901.msg88600#msg88600 date=1398639499]
shot clock violation...
What is the clock in water polo?  It seemed like on other possessions we had the ball for a lot longer than on that last possession.
[/quote]

For NCAA Women, it is a 35 second shot clock (the men's shot clock dropped from 35 to 30 in 2012).

I believe the rule for shot clock reset is that it is reset when it is shot, no matter what happens on the shot.  If there is a field block and the shooting team recovers, they have a new shot clock. (In other words, I'm disagreeing (politely, I hope) with VG.)

Quote:The timekeeper recording the possession time shall reset the shot clock:
a. When the ball has left the hand of the player shooting at goal. If the ball rebounds into play from the goal post, crossbar or the goalkeeper, the
possession time shall not recommence until the ball comes into the possession of one of the teams.
  http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/WP14.pdf

(Possession of the ball if it goes out of bounds after a shot is determined by whether the goalie touched it last or not.  It isn't like basketball: If a defender in the field touches the shot ball, and it goes out of bounds without touching the goalie, then possession is given to the defense.)

Going into the last minute with a lead of 6-5 was not a secure lead.  Even though the other team has only scored 5 points in 31 minutes of play, water polo sees an inordinate amount of goals in the last minute.

I counted 4 shots that Stanford should have made but didn't, compared to one for UCLA.  (Not that I'm saying the players didn't shoot well, just that the shots were close & open enough, and not blocked.  It happens.)  Stanford could have had a bigger win;  UCLA was somewhat lucky it was this close.    The game was well played defensively.  I thought it was rougher in the hole (and on the whole) than the Kal game.  I thought UCLA's offense looked better than Stanford generally.  Stanford's defense played as though they were very concerned about UCLA's 2 meter person.  (And, from what we saw in the first half, with good reason.)  UCLA outside players played further away from the goal, giving more room to get the ball into the hole, but with less chance of making an outside shot.  Stanford's offense seemed relatively clogged up, but still we didn't take many shots from 5-6 meters out.

Stanford got 3 goals in each half.  UCLA got 5 in the first half and none in the second.  UCLA only had 2 other games with 5 or fewer goals (one was the 8-4 loss to Stanford; one was a 5-4 win over Hawaii).  Stanford only had one other game with under 9 goals --- the 9-6 loss against UCLA.

We won all the sprints today, whereas we lost almost all of them in the televised games to US.C and Kal.  Did I see we used at least 3 different sprinters?

As VG said, the win today puts us with only 1 serious opponent between us and a national championship.  That opponent will likely be UCLA.  If that happens, it will be another close game.

I just realized that this is the first MPSF conference championship for any of the Stanford players.  The seniors have 2 national championships and a near miss in their junior year, but this is the first conference championship.  That just goes to show how this conference has by far the strongest teams year after year.


For those of you new to the game, the most abused rule is that you can put your hand on a player when they have the ball, but not when they don't.  So when the player lets go of the ball (drops it), if you're touching them, then an ordinary foul is called.  But then, what about all the mauling that goes on in the hole? Basically, you can push a person around with your body (or head) and vice versa, but using your arms, hands, or legs may be called. The calling of fouls is an art --- I don't think anyone could write down rules that cover how fouls are or aren't called.  There's more fouling and more faking of fouls in water polo than in any other sport I've watched or played in.  That's why you'll see players with both hands in the air (not using them for blocking) when in close proximity, as they try to show the ref they aren't grabbing.  And yet, a player with both hands in the air may get called for an exclusion foul.

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Viking_Guy - 04-27-2014

MT--

Do you know if there's a specific definition of shot where a field block resets a shot clock?  Most of the time I've seen it reset only off the keeper touch over the end line, because the ball doesn't turn over at that point.  I guess I was conflating change of possession calls with shot clock resetting.

In other words, what constitutes a "shot" that resets the clock?  The equivalent of touching the rim in basketball, I guess?

And are contra fouls (because you couldn't see them in the TV shot) mostly impeding or grabbing a player in transition who doesn't have the ball?

Thanks!

VG


Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - BobK - 04-28-2014

Long long ago they started checking toe nails.    :) :P

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - Spiny_Norman - 04-28-2014

Bracket announced for the NCAA championship.  No surprises.  Stanford 1, UCLA 2, USC 3, Cal 4.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/waterpolo-women/article/2014-04-28/field-10-teams-bracket-finalized-nc-womens-water-polo

Re: WWP: Stanford v UCLA - M T - 04-29-2014

(04-27-2014, 06:39 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:MT--

Do you know if there's a specific definition of shot where a field block resets a shot clock?  Most of the time I've seen it reset only off the keeper touch over the end line, because the ball doesn't turn over at that point.  I guess I was conflating change of possession calls with shot clock resetting.

In other words, what constitutes a "shot" that resets the clock?  The equivalent of touching the rim in basketball, I guess?

And are contra fouls (because you couldn't see them in the TV shot) mostly impeding or grabbing a player in transition who doesn't have the ball?

Thanks!

VG

When I played decades ago we didn't have shot clocks.  While I've watched the game over the past few years, I never read the rule book.  I had an answer already typed in when I saw what you said about what constitutes a shot and frankly thought, darn, I must be wrong about it.  So I looked at the rules.  The rules are very clear about resetting the clock when it leaves the player's hand (so a field block can't negate that reset).  It is reset again when someone gets possession again (apparently except in the case of a shot that is short or field blocked and the shooting team recovers it) but the first reset already happened.

So, as far as resetting the shot clock, it is up to the shot clock official to judge whether a shot was attempted (versus a pass), and he/she must make that call as the ball is leaving the hand.  There's no effect on that reset if the ball is subsequently field blocked, is short, goes out untouched, etc.

With under a minute to go against UCLA, Stanford attempted a shot (by my judgement), which was then knocked down into the water by a field block.  Stanford recovered the ball.  (The audience (incl. me) couldn't see the shot clock so we couldn't tell if it had been reset.)  Our player then attempted to turn to the goal and had the ball stolen.  If she had recognized that the shot had happened, she could have swum the ball toward the side of the pool, and made a careful pass to an open player, and given us another 35 seconds of possession, which would have left only 15 seconds or less for UCLA to try to tie it up.

The term "contra foul" only appears once in the rule book.  Officially they are just fouls against the offensive team.  Pretty much the same things can be called on both teams.  Most of the contra fouls I saw called were in the hole, where the offensive player would swing her (say) left arm into the face of the guarding player on her backside, as she is receiving the ball with her right hand.  If that left arm is under water, a foul would not be called (and is not very effective).  (Many more contra fouls were called that I didn't see.)  I certainly saw girls on defense rise out of the water to show that the offensive player was grabbing their suit (usually it is the other way around).    Another foul I saw that I would have called was where one offensive player was cutting across the goal with her defender in pursuit.  The offensive player in the hole seemed to reach out to delay the defender (by grabbing her leg or suit).  Just putting your body in the way (I'm not aware of any "moving shield" violation) is ok.  Grabbing (by hand or leg) is not.  Nor is pushing off (as in getting a head start), but that is much less called because it is harder to see.  Hooking in water polo is a standard technique even without the ball and is rarely called a foul except when it is right in front of the goal.  The hooking in water polo would be closer to a wrestling move than anything you see in basketball.