12-17-2015, 03:01 PM
WBB: Tennessee at Stanford
12-17-2015, 04:36 PM
Talking with friends post game and in the final minute the theme was MARTA. What a great break out game. The box score doesn't matter, it was her leadership and the calmness that got us the win. Of course those 9 points sure helped. Marta isn't going to hit many threes and 9 points may be the best we can hope for, but she makes the other 4 on the floor into a team. A pleasure to watch.
Also another key, our D. DeShields with Karlie all over her scored 12. DeShields is a great offensive player, but just 12. I feared Graves inside, Russell and Graves made just 5 shots. FIVE!!!!!. Just great D by Erica, Kailee, and Kaylee. Â
Still another 19 points, and so many she created, what a game by Lili. OK box score for Lili 19 points 7 rebounds and 4 assists.Â
Yes too many turnovers, some soft passes some lost focus like 2 double dribbles by McPhee, but also we made nice passes into the post, didn't always work but you must gamble with passes into the post to score.Â
One more thougth Smith looked more comfortable. Her problem and Kaylee's has been both D and adjustment. Smith to the team and Kaylee to the 4 after playing the 5. It's coming.
PS: My Chalk Talk question was about rebounding and Kaylee and Smith. This two stepped up and we out rebounded Tennessee by 11!!!Â
Also another key, our D. DeShields with Karlie all over her scored 12. DeShields is a great offensive player, but just 12. I feared Graves inside, Russell and Graves made just 5 shots. FIVE!!!!!. Just great D by Erica, Kailee, and Kaylee. Â
Still another 19 points, and so many she created, what a game by Lili. OK box score for Lili 19 points 7 rebounds and 4 assists.Â
Yes too many turnovers, some soft passes some lost focus like 2 double dribbles by McPhee, but also we made nice passes into the post, didn't always work but you must gamble with passes into the post to score.Â
One more thougth Smith looked more comfortable. Her problem and Kaylee's has been both D and adjustment. Smith to the team and Kaylee to the 4 after playing the 5. It's coming.
PS: My Chalk Talk question was about rebounding and Kaylee and Smith. This two stepped up and we out rebounded Tennessee by 11!!!Â
Talking with friends post game and in the final minute the theme was MARTA. What a great break out game. The box score doesn't matter, it was her leadership and the calmness that got us the win. Of course those 9 points sure helped. Marta isn't going to hit many threes and 9 points may be the best we can hope for, but she makes the other 4 on the floor into a team. A pleasure to watch.
Also another key, our D. DeShields with Karlie all over her scored 12. DeShields is a great offensive player, but just 12. I feared Graves inside, Russell and Graves made just 5 shots. FIVE!!!!!. Just great D by Erica, Kailee, and Kaylee. Â
Still another 19 points, and so many she created, what a game by Lili. OK box score for Lili 19 points 7 rebounds and 4 assists.Â
Yes too many turnovers, some soft passes some lost focus like 2 double dribbles by McPhee, but also we made nice passes into the post, didn't always work but you must gamble with passes into the post to score.Â
One more thougth Smith looked more comfortable. Her problem and Kaylee's has been both D and adjustment. Smith to the team and Kaylee to the 4 after playing the 5. It's coming.
PS: My Chalk Talk question was about rebounding and Kaylee and Smith. This two stepped up and we out rebounded Tennessee by 11!!!Â
Also another key, our D. DeShields with Karlie all over her scored 12. DeShields is a great offensive player, but just 12. I feared Graves inside, Russell and Graves made just 5 shots. FIVE!!!!!. Just great D by Erica, Kailee, and Kaylee. Â
Still another 19 points, and so many she created, what a game by Lili. OK box score for Lili 19 points 7 rebounds and 4 assists.Â
Yes too many turnovers, some soft passes some lost focus like 2 double dribbles by McPhee, but also we made nice passes into the post, didn't always work but you must gamble with passes into the post to score.Â
One more thougth Smith looked more comfortable. Her problem and Kaylee's has been both D and adjustment. Smith to the team and Kaylee to the 4 after playing the 5. It's coming.
PS: My Chalk Talk question was about rebounding and Kaylee and Smith. This two stepped up and we out rebounded Tennessee by 11!!!Â
12-17-2015, 06:46 PM
(12-17-2015, 02:26 PM)MT link Wrote:On a different topic, I'm beginning to suspect that some coaches are intentionally standing on the court in their opponent's front court, as a method of reducing the size of the court (better for defense) and discouraging the use of that corner for 3s.So what would happen if a player ran hard into the coach on the court?
In the first attached image, the Tennessee coach is occupying the corner. Bri has just gotten the inbound pass and the corner is closed to her. (In this case, I wonder what the call would have been if the inbound ball had been thrown to the coach while she is standing in bounds. It must be some kind of technical foul on the bench.)
But in the Texas game, the coach was almost constantly on the floor during our offense, impeding our players and even the official at least once. (In UTCoach4a, the coach is stepping further out onto the floor. The ref is coming from right to left and has to put on the brakes to avoid running into the coach. In UTCoach7a, two of our players cross, and one of their players step outside the 3pt line, while the coach is crowding that area from the back)
In the Texas game, I felt the officials should have issued at least a warning, and then, if it continued, a technical. The onus is on them. This shouldn't require a request from the other team.
(12-17-2015, 02:26 PM)MT link Wrote:On a different topic, I'm beginning to suspect that some coaches are intentionally standing on the court in their opponent's front court, as a method of reducing the size of the court (better for defense) and discouraging the use of that corner for 3s.So what would happen if a player ran hard into the coach on the court?
In the first attached image, the Tennessee coach is occupying the corner. Bri has just gotten the inbound pass and the corner is closed to her. (In this case, I wonder what the call would have been if the inbound ball had been thrown to the coach while she is standing in bounds. It must be some kind of technical foul on the bench.)
But in the Texas game, the coach was almost constantly on the floor during our offense, impeding our players and even the official at least once. (In UTCoach4a, the coach is stepping further out onto the floor. The ref is coming from right to left and has to put on the brakes to avoid running into the coach. In UTCoach7a, two of our players cross, and one of their players step outside the 3pt line, while the coach is crowding that area from the back)
In the Texas game, I felt the officials should have issued at least a warning, and then, if it continued, a technical. The onus is on them. This shouldn't require a request from the other team.
12-17-2015, 08:23 PM
(12-17-2015, 06:46 PM)Jskass link Wrote:So what would happen if a player ran hard into the coach on the court?
I'm assuming you mean inbounds. (If out of bounds, and in the coaching box, I'd guess no penalty would be called unless the contact was intentional by one party.)
If intentional by the player, that excessive action might warrant a Flagrant 1 Personal on the player, or worse. (If I were the coach, I would certainly consider suspension or kicking the person off the team.)
If intentional by the coach, I would have to believe the coach would be immediately ejected (Flagrant 2 Technical), followed by likely action by the conference or the NCAA.
If accidental, I suspect it would result only in a Direct Technical foul (Unsportsmanlike Conduct) on the coach (whether or not the coach had previously been given a warning). It appears that simply being out of the box requires a warning before a Direct Technical foul can be awarded. But if the coach and player collided, I'd think the official would want choose to call Unsportsmanlike Conduct, bypassing the warning.
There is also the issue of whether the coach has one foot inbounds and one foot in the coaching box. IMO, this isn't covered properly in the rules. Being partly in the coaching box avoids the Direct Technical foul after a warning.
The 2016-2017 NCAA Women's Basketball Rules lists this in the Areas of Concern (I added the bold face):
Quote:The rules committee is concerned about violations of the bench decorum ruleand elsewhere,
by players, coaches, and bench personnel. Only through the enforcement of
existing rules will players, coaches and bench personnel exhibit appropriate
and acceptable behaviors. Coaches are expected to remain in the coaching
box. To do otherwise results in a distinct advantage, which is not within
the spirit and intent of the rules. As stated in the Officiating Guidelines
(Appendix III), roaming coaches negatively influence play by being out on
the playing court.
Quote:Appendix III
Officiating Guidelines
Section 1. Bench Decorum
a. Coaching box. The rules committee wants the coaching box rule
enforced and technical fouls called for infractions. Coaches are expected
to remain in the coaching box. To do otherwise results in a distinct
advantage that is not within the spirit and intent of the rules. Roaming
coaches also negatively influence play by being out on the court. The
rule is clear and concise. Some coaches blatantly disregard the coaching
box and many officials refuse to enforce the rule. Head coaches have
the responsibility to remain in the box and behave in a sportsmanlike
manner. Institution and conference administrators must demand that
their coaches adhere to the rules and must support officials who properly
enforce the rules. The following guidelines have been established to assist
in adjudicating this situation.
1. Out of the coaching box. The rules prohibit the head coach from
being outside the prescribed coaching box. After a warning, a technical
foul shall be assessed when a coach is clearly and completely outside the
box.
(12-17-2015, 06:46 PM)Jskass link Wrote:So what would happen if a player ran hard into the coach on the court?
I'm assuming you mean inbounds. (If out of bounds, and in the coaching box, I'd guess no penalty would be called unless the contact was intentional by one party.)
If intentional by the player, that excessive action might warrant a Flagrant 1 Personal on the player, or worse. (If I were the coach, I would certainly consider suspension or kicking the person off the team.)
If intentional by the coach, I would have to believe the coach would be immediately ejected (Flagrant 2 Technical), followed by likely action by the conference or the NCAA.
If accidental, I suspect it would result only in a Direct Technical foul (Unsportsmanlike Conduct) on the coach (whether or not the coach had previously been given a warning). It appears that simply being out of the box requires a warning before a Direct Technical foul can be awarded. But if the coach and player collided, I'd think the official would want choose to call Unsportsmanlike Conduct, bypassing the warning.
There is also the issue of whether the coach has one foot inbounds and one foot in the coaching box. IMO, this isn't covered properly in the rules. Being partly in the coaching box avoids the Direct Technical foul after a warning.
The 2016-2017 NCAA Women's Basketball Rules lists this in the Areas of Concern (I added the bold face):
Quote:The rules committee is concerned about violations of the bench decorum ruleand elsewhere,
by players, coaches, and bench personnel. Only through the enforcement of
existing rules will players, coaches and bench personnel exhibit appropriate
and acceptable behaviors. Coaches are expected to remain in the coaching
box. To do otherwise results in a distinct advantage, which is not within
the spirit and intent of the rules. As stated in the Officiating Guidelines
(Appendix III), roaming coaches negatively influence play by being out on
the playing court.
Quote:Appendix III
Officiating Guidelines
Section 1. Bench Decorum
a. Coaching box. The rules committee wants the coaching box rule
enforced and technical fouls called for infractions. Coaches are expected
to remain in the coaching box. To do otherwise results in a distinct
advantage that is not within the spirit and intent of the rules. Roaming
coaches also negatively influence play by being out on the court. The
rule is clear and concise. Some coaches blatantly disregard the coaching
box and many officials refuse to enforce the rule. Head coaches have
the responsibility to remain in the box and behave in a sportsmanlike
manner. Institution and conference administrators must demand that
their coaches adhere to the rules and must support officials who properly
enforce the rules. The following guidelines have been established to assist
in adjudicating this situation.
1. Out of the coaching box. The rules prohibit the head coach from
being outside the prescribed coaching box. After a warning, a technical
foul shall be assessed when a coach is clearly and completely outside the
box.
12-17-2015, 09:28 PM
(12-17-2015, 08:23 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=Jskass link=topic=14097.msg148826#msg148826 date=1450403215]
So what would happen if a player ran hard into the coach on the court?
I'm assuming you mean inbounds. (If out of bounds, and in the coaching box, I'd guess no penalty would be called unless the contact was intentional by one party.)
If intentional by the player, that excessive action might warrant a Flagrant 1 Personal on the player, or worse. (If I were the coach, I would certainly consider suspension or kicking the person off the team.)
If intentional by the coach, I would have to believe the coach would be immediately ejected (Flagrant 2 Technical), followed by likely action by the conference or the NCAA.
If accidental, I suspect it would result only in a Direct Technical foul (Unsportsmanlike Conduct) on the coach (whether or not the coach had previously been given a warning). It appears that simply being out of the box requires a warning before a Direct Technical foul can be awarded. But if the coach and player collided, I'd think the official would want choose to call Unsportsmanlike Conduct, bypassing the warning.
There is also the issue of whether the coach has one foot inbounds and one foot in the coaching box. IMO, this isn't covered properly in the rules. Being partly in the coaching box avoids the Direct Technical foul after a warning.
The 2016-2017 NCAA Women's Basketball Rules lists this in the Areas of Concern (I added the bold face):
Quote:The rules committee is concerned about violations of the bench decorum ruleand elsewhere,
by players, coaches, and bench personnel. Only through the enforcement of
existing rules will players, coaches and bench personnel exhibit appropriate
and acceptable behaviors. Coaches are expected to remain in the coaching
box. To do otherwise results in a distinct advantage, which is not within
the spirit and intent of the rules. As stated in the Officiating Guidelines
(Appendix III), roaming coaches negatively influence play by being out on
the playing court.
Quote:Appendix III[/quote]
Officiating Guidelines
Section 1. Bench Decorum
a. Coaching box. The rules committee wants the coaching box rule
enforced and technical fouls called for infractions. Coaches are expected
to remain in the coaching box. To do otherwise results in a distinct
advantage that is not within the spirit and intent of the rules. Roaming
coaches also negatively influence play by being out on the court. The
rule is clear and concise. Some coaches blatantly disregard the coaching
box and many officials refuse to enforce the rule. Head coaches have
the responsibility to remain in the box and behave in a sportsmanlike
manner. Institution and conference administrators must demand that
their coaches adhere to the rules and must support officials who properly
enforce the rules. The following guidelines have been established to assist
in adjudicating this situation.
1. Out of the coaching box. The rules prohibit the head coach from
being outside the prescribed coaching box. After a warning, a technical
foul shall be assessed when a coach is clearly and completely outside the
box.
You know, MT, it would be fun to bring excerpts of the rules book to the game printed out on gigantic posters, and display them at strategic times.
(12-17-2015, 08:23 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=Jskass link=topic=14097.msg148826#msg148826 date=1450403215]
So what would happen if a player ran hard into the coach on the court?
I'm assuming you mean inbounds. (If out of bounds, and in the coaching box, I'd guess no penalty would be called unless the contact was intentional by one party.)
If intentional by the player, that excessive action might warrant a Flagrant 1 Personal on the player, or worse. (If I were the coach, I would certainly consider suspension or kicking the person off the team.)
If intentional by the coach, I would have to believe the coach would be immediately ejected (Flagrant 2 Technical), followed by likely action by the conference or the NCAA.
If accidental, I suspect it would result only in a Direct Technical foul (Unsportsmanlike Conduct) on the coach (whether or not the coach had previously been given a warning). It appears that simply being out of the box requires a warning before a Direct Technical foul can be awarded. But if the coach and player collided, I'd think the official would want choose to call Unsportsmanlike Conduct, bypassing the warning.
There is also the issue of whether the coach has one foot inbounds and one foot in the coaching box. IMO, this isn't covered properly in the rules. Being partly in the coaching box avoids the Direct Technical foul after a warning.
The 2016-2017 NCAA Women's Basketball Rules lists this in the Areas of Concern (I added the bold face):
Quote:The rules committee is concerned about violations of the bench decorum ruleand elsewhere,
by players, coaches, and bench personnel. Only through the enforcement of
existing rules will players, coaches and bench personnel exhibit appropriate
and acceptable behaviors. Coaches are expected to remain in the coaching
box. To do otherwise results in a distinct advantage, which is not within
the spirit and intent of the rules. As stated in the Officiating Guidelines
(Appendix III), roaming coaches negatively influence play by being out on
the playing court.
Quote:Appendix III[/quote]
Officiating Guidelines
Section 1. Bench Decorum
a. Coaching box. The rules committee wants the coaching box rule
enforced and technical fouls called for infractions. Coaches are expected
to remain in the coaching box. To do otherwise results in a distinct
advantage that is not within the spirit and intent of the rules. Roaming
coaches also negatively influence play by being out on the court. The
rule is clear and concise. Some coaches blatantly disregard the coaching
box and many officials refuse to enforce the rule. Head coaches have
the responsibility to remain in the box and behave in a sportsmanlike
manner. Institution and conference administrators must demand that
their coaches adhere to the rules and must support officials who properly
enforce the rules. The following guidelines have been established to assist
in adjudicating this situation.
1. Out of the coaching box. The rules prohibit the head coach from
being outside the prescribed coaching box. After a warning, a technical
foul shall be assessed when a coach is clearly and completely outside the
box.
You know, MT, it would be fun to bring excerpts of the rules book to the game printed out on gigantic posters, and display them at strategic times.
12-18-2015, 09:57 AM
so the player does NOT have the right to that space on the court? If it is occupied by a coach and a player runs into or steps on the coach, the player would be penalized? that is CRAZY unfair.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »