[CompSci87]

Trying to figure out what the heck that call was with 5:16 to go in the second quarter. Play-by-Play indicates a turnover by Hannah. If I'm understanding the ref's signal, it was for being out-of-bounds at the baseline, which she was. But she didn't have the ball (it was being passed near the top of the key).  Any idea, or just the ref hallucinating?

I can't figure it out. 

The signal the ref gave is not on this extensive list of official signals (which may be a little out of date, though):

https://www.publicaddressannouncer.org/w...018-19.pdf

The signal looks like first just waving the hands to stop play, then maybe either out of bounds, or going out of bounds and coming back in (neither is listed as an official signal, and of course neither is a violation by itself). The ref kept his hand low, so it didn't look like an official over and back (obviously couldn't be that) or carrying violation signal.

If the signal was for Hannah being out of bounds: It is illegal to set a screen while out of bounds, but Hannah didn't do that, nor did Haley. They just crossed paths, with neither setting a screen, and Hannah stepped out of bounds to go around Haley, which is legal.

The official seemed to wait until Hannah received the pass until he blew the whistle. Maybe that was just a delayed reaction to what he saw moments earlier on the baseline, though. If it was significant, I don't see why. After going out of bounds, it is illegal to touch the ball again until you establish yourself inbounds again. In this case Hannah took several steps inbounds before receiving the pass, so there is no question whether she established herself inbounds. Another possibility would be that Hannah moved both feet after receiving the pass without dribbling, but that would be signaled as a travel, not a carry. Plus she didn't do that as far as I can see.

My best guess is a phantom call for setting a screen out of bounds.

[CompSci87]

Trying to figure out what the heck that call was with 5:16 to go in the second quarter. Play-by-Play indicates a turnover by Hannah. If I'm understanding the ref's signal, it was for being out-of-bounds at the baseline, which she was. But she didn't have the ball (it was being passed near the top of the key).  Any idea, or just the ref hallucinating?

I can't figure it out. 

The signal the ref gave is not on this extensive list of official signals (which may be a little out of date, though):

https://www.publicaddressannouncer.org/w...018-19.pdf

The signal looks like first just waving the hands to stop play, then maybe either out of bounds, or going out of bounds and coming back in (neither is listed as an official signal, and of course neither is a violation by itself). The ref kept his hand low, so it didn't look like an official over and back (obviously couldn't be that) or carrying violation signal.

If the signal was for Hannah being out of bounds: It is illegal to set a screen while out of bounds, but Hannah didn't do that, nor did Haley. They just crossed paths, with neither setting a screen, and Hannah stepped out of bounds to go around Haley, which is legal.

The official seemed to wait until Hannah received the pass until he blew the whistle. Maybe that was just a delayed reaction to what he saw moments earlier on the baseline, though. If it was significant, I don't see why. After going out of bounds, it is illegal to touch the ball again until you establish yourself inbounds again. In this case Hannah took several steps inbounds before receiving the pass, so there is no question whether she established herself inbounds. Another possibility would be that Hannah moved both feet after receiving the pass without dribbling, but that would be signaled as a travel, not a carry. Plus she didn't do that as far as I can see.

My best guess is a phantom call for setting a screen out of bounds.

[CompSci87]

There is more to the rule about going out of bounds and coming back in than I was aware of. However I still don't see how Hannah committed a violation.

Section 3. Player Out of Bounds Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under their own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

Hannah wasn't "the first player to touch the ball" after going out of bounds and coming back in, because the ball was still in Talana's hands when Hannah came back in. It wasn't in the air.

(By the way, from context this rule seems to be mostly for throw-ins; there's a paragraph (a) after it that applies only to throw-ins. But there's nothing that says what I quoted above applies only to throw-ins.)

I suppose it could have been a phantom call under this rule if the ref thought Talana released the pass way before she really did.

p.s. Well, the WBB rules casebook gives an example that makes it sound as if this rule was violated

Player Out of Bounds A.R. 249. Team A sets a double screen for A1, who leaves the playing court voluntarily and runs under the basket, circles around, returns to the playing court, and then is the first to receive the ball. RULING: A violation has been committed by A1 for voluntarily leaving the playing court and then becoming the first player to touch the ball upon return. (Rule 9-3.1)

The example says "first to receive the ball. Nevertheless the rule says "first to touch the ball". I can't imagine the rule really means that if you go out of bounds and some player on your team has the ball inbounds, the player with the ball has to pass it to some third player before you are allowed to touch it again.

***

MT, do you have any ideas what the violation was?

[CompSci87]

There is more to the rule about going out of bounds and coming back in than I was aware of. However I still don't see how Hannah committed a violation.

Section 3. Player Out of Bounds Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under their own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

Hannah wasn't "the first player to touch the ball" after going out of bounds and coming back in, because the ball was still in Talana's hands when Hannah came back in. It wasn't in the air.

(By the way, from context this rule seems to be mostly for throw-ins; there's a paragraph (a) after it that applies only to throw-ins. But there's nothing that says what I quoted above applies only to throw-ins.)

I suppose it could have been a phantom call under this rule if the ref thought Talana released the pass way before she really did.

p.s. Well, the WBB rules casebook gives an example that makes it sound as if this rule was violated

Player Out of Bounds A.R. 249. Team A sets a double screen for A1, who leaves the playing court voluntarily and runs under the basket, circles around, returns to the playing court, and then is the first to receive the ball. RULING: A violation has been committed by A1 for voluntarily leaving the playing court and then becoming the first player to touch the ball upon return. (Rule 9-3.1)

The example says "first to receive the ball. Nevertheless the rule says "first to touch the ball". I can't imagine the rule really means that if you go out of bounds and some player on your team has the ball inbounds, the player with the ball has to pass it to some third player before you are allowed to touch it again.

***

MT, do you have any ideas what the violation was?

[81alum]

I've been of the opinion for a while now that some coaches see bad loses as motivators because the coach gets to say very directly to the team that they didn't execute, or play hard enough, or pay attention to the scout, etc. I always thought that after a loss, Mike Montgomery seemed to be actually talking to the team when he would make his characteristically blunt post-game comments.

I've never thought that it's a realistic goal to win every game even if your goal is to win the last one.

Not to say that anyone wants to lose, but there really are different kinds of losses. For instance:

(1) You had no chance. It's 1973. Stanford (men) lose to UCLA at Maples 82-67 against Bill Walton, Jamaal Wilkes et al. Cumulative reaction in the locker room after the game is probably something like "wow they're good. I mean, really good." UCLA yawns and goes undefeated. Two of Stanford's losses to the unfairly stacked UMass teams in the tournament probably fall into this category.

(2) Your effort was lacking. It's January 17, 2020, and Stanford (women) lose to Colorado on the road, breaking a season-long winning streak. Kiana Williams goes 3-12 with no assists, Brink fouls out (thanks Chuck), and Stanford shoots 5-22 from 3. Hollingshed lights them up (32 pts including 4 three-pointers and 10 boards). Coach Tara says (actual quote): "We did not defend Hollingshed worth a darn...She had her way with whoever was guarding her." She also says: "I hold this really bothers people and gets under their skin and they decide we want to play basketball at a different level...It was really disappointing to me."

(3) Maybe your effort was there but you didn't execute. It's January 21, 2020 - Stanford (women) lose to UCLA in Santa Cruz. Coach Tara (actual quotes): "It was ridiculous some of the mistakes we had. They outhustled us and they were scrappier." Reaction: Brink goes into the starting lineup. In the February 5 rematch vs Colorado, Brink has 6 blocks, 8 boards, and 13 points. Hollingshed has 16 points, 6 rebounds, no 3's, and she fouls out. And we all know what happened for the rest of the season.

I'm sure we could come up with several other categories (e.g. we just lost two of our best players to season ending injuries...).

I put the South Carolina loss into the category of "on this night, they were better than we were but we didn't really play well." I put the USC loss into the category of "we aren't able to execute the new offense against a motivated, pressing team," and I was glad to see that the USC loss prompted some reflection and changes from the coaches. I suspect the Washington loss was a combo of a smart defensive scheme and the team not being ready to execute at a high level. What I saw from the Arizona game is a team that decided top to bottom to say "we don't like losing" and "it's time to go." It's hard to keep motivated to play at your very best over an entire season, but losing is sometimes a better motivator than winning. Brink says she hates losing more than winning.

Was I the only one who thought that the refs were on another planet for this game? One of the offensive foul calls against Brink was terrible, and Scofield called a turnover with about 5 minutes to go in the 2nd quarter that I still can't figure out even after replaying it about 50 times.

That is an interesting way to divide losses into different categories, based on motivation, skill, and coaching.  I find that insightful.  Thanks.  I especially appreciate the quotes from Tara.

As for our losses this year, based on what Tara said about holding the team back, I'm inclined to think we had the skill to win in our three losses, our motivation may have waned a little with Washington and USC, but I think the coaches did not figure out the best scout or the best adjustments.  There have been years in which I have felt that the coaches got the most out of our players, even when we had an off--year.  This is not one of those years--not so far--although the Arizona game certainly looked promising and I hope it is a harbinger of things to come.  I would say that winning the Pac 12 tourney and getting to the final 4 are still reasonable expectations, and I would say that anything less than that would reflect on the coaching--although granted that this was an exceptionally difficult year to coach, given the turnover and the unusual strengths and weaknesses.  (If we win the next 5 in a row I will become MUCH more optimistic.  But that last weekend, away, against Utah and Colorado looms large.)  Getting another natty requires more than good coaching, but also exceptional player motivation and a bit of luck.

[81alum]

I've been of the opinion for a while now that some coaches see bad loses as motivators because the coach gets to say very directly to the team that they didn't execute, or play hard enough, or pay attention to the scout, etc. I always thought that after a loss, Mike Montgomery seemed to be actually talking to the team when he would make his characteristically blunt post-game comments.

I've never thought that it's a realistic goal to win every game even if your goal is to win the last one.

Not to say that anyone wants to lose, but there really are different kinds of losses. For instance:

(1) You had no chance. It's 1973. Stanford (men) lose to UCLA at Maples 82-67 against Bill Walton, Jamaal Wilkes et al. Cumulative reaction in the locker room after the game is probably something like "wow they're good. I mean, really good." UCLA yawns and goes undefeated. Two of Stanford's losses to the unfairly stacked UMass teams in the tournament probably fall into this category.

(2) Your effort was lacking. It's January 17, 2020, and Stanford (women) lose to Colorado on the road, breaking a season-long winning streak. Kiana Williams goes 3-12 with no assists, Brink fouls out (thanks Chuck), and Stanford shoots 5-22 from 3. Hollingshed lights them up (32 pts including 4 three-pointers and 10 boards). Coach Tara says (actual quote): "We did not defend Hollingshed worth a darn...She had her way with whoever was guarding her." She also says: "I hold this really bothers people and gets under their skin and they decide we want to play basketball at a different level...It was really disappointing to me."

(3) Maybe your effort was there but you didn't execute. It's January 21, 2020 - Stanford (women) lose to UCLA in Santa Cruz. Coach Tara (actual quotes): "It was ridiculous some of the mistakes we had. They outhustled us and they were scrappier." Reaction: Brink goes into the starting lineup. In the February 5 rematch vs Colorado, Brink has 6 blocks, 8 boards, and 13 points. Hollingshed has 16 points, 6 rebounds, no 3's, and she fouls out. And we all know what happened for the rest of the season.

I'm sure we could come up with several other categories (e.g. we just lost two of our best players to season ending injuries...).

I put the South Carolina loss into the category of "on this night, they were better than we were but we didn't really play well." I put the USC loss into the category of "we aren't able to execute the new offense against a motivated, pressing team," and I was glad to see that the USC loss prompted some reflection and changes from the coaches. I suspect the Washington loss was a combo of a smart defensive scheme and the team not being ready to execute at a high level. What I saw from the Arizona game is a team that decided top to bottom to say "we don't like losing" and "it's time to go." It's hard to keep motivated to play at your very best over an entire season, but losing is sometimes a better motivator than winning. Brink says she hates losing more than winning.

Was I the only one who thought that the refs were on another planet for this game? One of the offensive foul calls against Brink was terrible, and Scofield called a turnover with about 5 minutes to go in the 2nd quarter that I still can't figure out even after replaying it about 50 times.

That is an interesting way to divide losses into different categories, based on motivation, skill, and coaching.  I find that insightful.  Thanks.  I especially appreciate the quotes from Tara.

As for our losses this year, based on what Tara said about holding the team back, I'm inclined to think we had the skill to win in our three losses, our motivation may have waned a little with Washington and USC, but I think the coaches did not figure out the best scout or the best adjustments.  There have been years in which I have felt that the coaches got the most out of our players, even when we had an off--year.  This is not one of those years--not so far--although the Arizona game certainly looked promising and I hope it is a harbinger of things to come.  I would say that winning the Pac 12 tourney and getting to the final 4 are still reasonable expectations, and I would say that anything less than that would reflect on the coaching--although granted that this was an exceptionally difficult year to coach, given the turnover and the unusual strengths and weaknesses.  (If we win the next 5 in a row I will become MUCH more optimistic.  But that last weekend, away, against Utah and Colorado looms large.)  Getting another natty requires more than good coaching, but also exceptional player motivation and a bit of luck.

[BostonCard]

For anyone still grousing about our loss to Washington, on the men’s side, #4 Arizona just lost to a Stanford team that has a losing record and is in 10th place in the conference.  We just shot the lights out, not that it would stop some soul searching on the Wildcat boards.

In the words of Dire Straits, “sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug”

https://youtu.be/GG5ghP8XLW8

BC

[BostonCard]

For anyone still grousing about our loss to Washington, on the men’s side, #4 Arizona just lost to a Stanford team that has a losing record and is in 10th place in the conference.  We just shot the lights out, not that it would stop some soul searching on the Wildcat boards.

In the words of Dire Straits, “sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug”

https://youtu.be/GG5ghP8XLW8

BC

[M T]

There is more to the rule about going out of bounds and coming back in than I was aware of. However I still don't see how Hannah committed a violation.

Section 3. Player Out of Bounds Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under their own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

Hannah wasn't "the first player to touch the ball" after going out of bounds and coming back in, because the ball was still in Talana's hands when Hannah came back in. It wasn't in the air.

(By the way, from context this rule seems to be mostly for throw-ins; there's a paragraph (a) after it that applies only to throw-ins. But there's nothing that says what I quoted above applies only to throw-ins.)

I suppose it could have been a phantom call under this rule if the ref thought Talana released the pass way before she really did.

p.s. Well, the WBB rules casebook gives an example that makes it sound as if this rule was violated

Player Out of Bounds A.R. 249. Team A sets a double screen for A1, who leaves the playing court voluntarily and runs under the basket, circles around, returns to the playing court, and then is the first to receive the ball. RULING: A violation has been committed by A1 for voluntarily leaving the playing court and then becoming the first player to touch the ball upon return. (Rule 9-3.1)

The example says "first to receive the ball. Nevertheless the rule says "first to touch the ball". I can't imagine the rule really means that if you go out of bounds and some player on your team has the ball inbounds, the player with the ball has to pass it to some third player before you are allowed to touch it again.

***

MT, do you have any ideas what the violation was?

(Sorry, I'm out of town on a family emergency.)

No doubt you have identified the rule this ref was appealing to.  My oldest NCAA rule book is 2011 and the rule is unchanged since then.

I do believe the rule was intended for a throw-in.  The Casebook example can best be read where this is a throw-in.  That's when "first to receive" makes sense.  (The difference between first to "receive" and "touch" is that the first to touch might tap the ball to another player rather than receive it.)

The rule as written really only makes sense on a throw-in.  
IMO, the rule should be rewritten to clarify either that this applies only to a throw-in, or to clarify what "first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court" means in the case of ongoing play.   Also, the "steps out of bounds" needs to be restricted to certain situations, or (more simply) restricted by the rule being only about play during a throw-in.

Taken literally without restricting it to a throw-in, the rule is ignored many times in most games.  After a turnover by the opponent, a player steps out of bounds to execute the throw-in, but then another player executes the throw-in to the first player.   Indeed, after most any timeout, no player can be the first to touch the ball since they all stepped out of bounds.  Ditto for a player that is returning to the game just before a throw-in.

Another case that might be applicable is where a player rescues the ball from going out of bounds, just before stepping out of bounds, and then steps inbounds to recover the ball.
Or, a player barely able to stay inbounds, tosses the ball up, steps out of bounds to recover her balance, steps back inbounds, and then catches the ball (no, it isn't traveling if her pivot foot was inbounds & didn't move).

Hmmm.... this brings up a question.  The player has one foot inbounds and one foot out of bounds, but doesn't have the ball (if she did, she would be out of bounds).  She lifts the foot that was out of bounds (but doesn't set it down inbounds).  Is she now inbounds? (Yes, by 4.18.1.a)

I think many of us agree that the call was bad.

[M T]

There is more to the rule about going out of bounds and coming back in than I was aware of. However I still don't see how Hannah committed a violation.

Section 3. Player Out of Bounds Art. 1. A player who steps out of bounds under their own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

Hannah wasn't "the first player to touch the ball" after going out of bounds and coming back in, because the ball was still in Talana's hands when Hannah came back in. It wasn't in the air.

(By the way, from context this rule seems to be mostly for throw-ins; there's a paragraph (a) after it that applies only to throw-ins. But there's nothing that says what I quoted above applies only to throw-ins.)

I suppose it could have been a phantom call under this rule if the ref thought Talana released the pass way before she really did.

p.s. Well, the WBB rules casebook gives an example that makes it sound as if this rule was violated

Player Out of Bounds A.R. 249. Team A sets a double screen for A1, who leaves the playing court voluntarily and runs under the basket, circles around, returns to the playing court, and then is the first to receive the ball. RULING: A violation has been committed by A1 for voluntarily leaving the playing court and then becoming the first player to touch the ball upon return. (Rule 9-3.1)

The example says "first to receive the ball. Nevertheless the rule says "first to touch the ball". I can't imagine the rule really means that if you go out of bounds and some player on your team has the ball inbounds, the player with the ball has to pass it to some third player before you are allowed to touch it again.

***

MT, do you have any ideas what the violation was?

(Sorry, I'm out of town on a family emergency.)

No doubt you have identified the rule this ref was appealing to.  My oldest NCAA rule book is 2011 and the rule is unchanged since then.

I do believe the rule was intended for a throw-in.  The Casebook example can best be read where this is a throw-in.  That's when "first to receive" makes sense.  (The difference between first to "receive" and "touch" is that the first to touch might tap the ball to another player rather than receive it.)

The rule as written really only makes sense on a throw-in.  
IMO, the rule should be rewritten to clarify either that this applies only to a throw-in, or to clarify what "first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court" means in the case of ongoing play.   Also, the "steps out of bounds" needs to be restricted to certain situations, or (more simply) restricted by the rule being only about play during a throw-in.

Taken literally without restricting it to a throw-in, the rule is ignored many times in most games.  After a turnover by the opponent, a player steps out of bounds to execute the throw-in, but then another player executes the throw-in to the first player.   Indeed, after most any timeout, no player can be the first to touch the ball since they all stepped out of bounds.  Ditto for a player that is returning to the game just before a throw-in.

Another case that might be applicable is where a player rescues the ball from going out of bounds, just before stepping out of bounds, and then steps inbounds to recover the ball.
Or, a player barely able to stay inbounds, tosses the ball up, steps out of bounds to recover her balance, steps back inbounds, and then catches the ball (no, it isn't traveling if her pivot foot was inbounds & didn't move).

Hmmm.... this brings up a question.  The player has one foot inbounds and one foot out of bounds, but doesn't have the ball (if she did, she would be out of bounds).  She lifts the foot that was out of bounds (but doesn't set it down inbounds).  Is she now inbounds? (Yes, by 4.18.1.a)

I think many of us agree that the call was bad.

[Goose]

I think the rule is also aimed at not allowing the players to make the court bigger than the in-bounds area. Suppose a player wants to run the baseline but cannot because there is a defender blocking their path. Fine, go out of bounds to get around the defender, come back in on the other side, receive the ball and lay it in. Does the defender have to go out of bounds to stay in front of you? One can see all kinds of strategies that could be build using the going out of bounds "wormhole". This rule mitigates that greatly by requiring at least one intervening pass before such a player is "legal" again.

[Goose]

I think the rule is also aimed at not allowing the players to make the court bigger than the in-bounds area. Suppose a player wants to run the baseline but cannot because there is a defender blocking their path. Fine, go out of bounds to get around the defender, come back in on the other side, receive the ball and lay it in. Does the defender have to go out of bounds to stay in front of you? One can see all kinds of strategies that could be build using the going out of bounds "wormhole". This rule mitigates that greatly by requiring at least one intervening pass before such a player is "legal" again.

[CompSci87]

Thanks, good thoughts.

Hmmm.... this brings up a question.  The player has one foot inbounds and one foot out of bounds, but doesn't have the ball (if she did, she would be out of bounds).  She lifts the foot that was out of bounds (but doesn't set it down inbounds).  Is she now inbounds? (Yes, by 4.18.1.a)

Interesting question. Many people (based on what I've heard announcers say, though maybe only NBA, and what I've found by googling) think that once you step out of bounds, both feet must touch inbounds before you are inbounds and allowed to touch the ball (and maybe even "or otherwise influence play"). But I couldn't find this in the NCAA WBB rule book or casebook. I also looked much more briefly in online official NBA rules. I found some discussions in an online forum for high school and college officials strongly stating it is not a rule even though some older officials think it is!

[CompSci87]

Thanks, good thoughts.

Hmmm.... this brings up a question.  The player has one foot inbounds and one foot out of bounds, but doesn't have the ball (if she did, she would be out of bounds).  She lifts the foot that was out of bounds (but doesn't set it down inbounds).  Is she now inbounds? (Yes, by 4.18.1.a)

Interesting question. Many people (based on what I've heard announcers say, though maybe only NBA, and what I've found by googling) think that once you step out of bounds, both feet must touch inbounds before you are inbounds and allowed to touch the ball (and maybe even "or otherwise influence play"). But I couldn't find this in the NCAA WBB rule book or casebook. I also looked much more briefly in online official NBA rules. I found some discussions in an online forum for high school and college officials strongly stating it is not a rule even though some older officials think it is!