[ca245]

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".

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.

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 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. 

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!

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.

[ca245]

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".

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.

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 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. 

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!

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.