[76lsjumb]

I would put my money on King Canute against the tide before I would put it on Missy calling a quiet, competent game.  That being said, I actually have a serious question for anyone who might know basketball rules.  

At one point [I think in the 3rd quarter], when GU had the ball and the possession arrow was in GU's favor, we tied them up and a jump ball was called with 3 seconds left on the shot clock.  They took the ball in and, on the inbounds throw, Kiana apparently kicked it with her foot.  The shot clock was then re-set to 20 seconds -- which I understand, as that is the rule now for a kicked ball by the defense when the shot clock is under 20 seconds. 

What I DON'T understand, however, is that the possession arrow did NOT flip to Stanford, a fact which certainly confused a whole lot of people, including many at the scorer's bench, ...and me.  Missy came over during a break in play a minute later and explained to the scorer that, "because the kicked ball was a violation that occurred before anyone touched the ball on the inbounds play, the possession arrow does not change.  It's as if the jump ball never happened."

That doesn't make any sense to me, since the determination of who gets possession following the tie-up is based on the existing possession arrow and, as soon as that team gets the opportunity to throw it in [with the accompanying loss of the possession arrow], the game has moved on.  It seems to me that, whatever happens thereafter shouldn't impact the flipping of the possession arrow.

Can anyone confirm whether this is, in fact, the rule, or did Missy and the gang get it wrong?  And, if it is the rule, what is the rationale?

---

A handful of takes from inside Maples:

1.  And I hate to lead with it, but that was the WORST officiated game I've seen in a long time.  And it wasn't so much the bad calls - of which there were plenty, with I'd say about 50% going in Stanford's favor - but as another poster noted, it was the "stop the game while I do something important at the scorer's table and you all wait and watch."  It was beyond annoying, and struck me as incredibly egocentric and unprofessional.  WTH is going on with MB, in particular?

2.  For the 1H, I thought Tara was coaching a hockey with team, with the way she was running subs in and out, with players on the floor for 1-3 minutes before being pulled again.  The worst treatment was for Carrington, who was plainly peeved at game's end (right from post-game huddle at midcourt to the locker room - the first one to exit Maples).  And I don't blame her.  Yeah, she forced a couple shots - but she wasn't the only one.  But the leash was ridiculously short for her, especially  a player with her resume.  I'm wondering if something went on in practices leading up to this game.  Whatever, I hope/trust things get worked out with Carrington, who was a complete non-factor today.  More generally, Tara has to give groups on the floor more time to play and get into the flow.  It was only when she halted the player line subs that Stanford got some flow (and that's when Haley, in particular, got going).

3.  Interestingly, Lexie played the entire 1H (which stood in stark contrast to most of the sub patterns).  She started out hot, but grew fatigued as the half wore down - very predictably.  And was cold shooting later in 1H (i.e., 2Q).  Strange that Lexie didn't get some rest earlier than she did.  Overall, Lexie had a very strong game, so this is picking at the edges, but I think it could have been better with a little better PT management.

4.  Stanford really needs to work on being "strong with the ball."  Too many times balls were fumbled away, or grabbed for a moment, or not secured.  Gonzaga, otoh, was physically stronger and bullied Stanford around quite a bit.

5.  Last point:  Gonzaga is very well-coached.  That entire team boxed out, played hard for the entire game, and pursued their game plan to a tee.  I was impressed.

P.S.  I'd say Kiana is the most indispensable player on this very talented roster.

Co-signed on all of your takes.

On your second point, I was and am very surprised that DiJonai played far less than what I thought and expected she would be playing during the critical parts of the game (the fourth quarter and overtime) as one of our top players and a senior leader. It was startling to see her get yanked after only a few minutes on court. Yes, she was making some head-scratching decisions, but so were others. You would think Tara would want her out there, not just with the tangible skills she has scoring and defending, but also as the fearless, most experienced player in crunch time on our roster.

Some apparent friction between Tara and one of the guards? Now THAT's never happened before... :-)

[76lsjumb]

I would put my money on King Canute against the tide before I would put it on Missy calling a quiet, competent game.  That being said, I actually have a serious question for anyone who might know basketball rules.  

At one point [I think in the 3rd quarter], when GU had the ball and the possession arrow was in GU's favor, we tied them up and a jump ball was called with 3 seconds left on the shot clock.  They took the ball in and, on the inbounds throw, Kiana apparently kicked it with her foot.  The shot clock was then re-set to 20 seconds -- which I understand, as that is the rule now for a kicked ball by the defense when the shot clock is under 20 seconds. 

What I DON'T understand, however, is that the possession arrow did NOT flip to Stanford, a fact which certainly confused a whole lot of people, including many at the scorer's bench, ...and me.  Missy came over during a break in play a minute later and explained to the scorer that, "because the kicked ball was a violation that occurred before anyone touched the ball on the inbounds play, the possession arrow does not change.  It's as if the jump ball never happened."

That doesn't make any sense to me, since the determination of who gets possession following the tie-up is based on the existing possession arrow and, as soon as that team gets the opportunity to throw it in [with the accompanying loss of the possession arrow], the game has moved on.  It seems to me that, whatever happens thereafter shouldn't impact the flipping of the possession arrow.

Can anyone confirm whether this is, in fact, the rule, or did Missy and the gang get it wrong?  And, if it is the rule, what is the rationale?

---

A handful of takes from inside Maples:

1.  And I hate to lead with it, but that was the WORST officiated game I've seen in a long time.  And it wasn't so much the bad calls - of which there were plenty, with I'd say about 50% going in Stanford's favor - but as another poster noted, it was the "stop the game while I do something important at the scorer's table and you all wait and watch."  It was beyond annoying, and struck me as incredibly egocentric and unprofessional.  WTH is going on with MB, in particular?

2.  For the 1H, I thought Tara was coaching a hockey with team, with the way she was running subs in and out, with players on the floor for 1-3 minutes before being pulled again.  The worst treatment was for Carrington, who was plainly peeved at game's end (right from post-game huddle at midcourt to the locker room - the first one to exit Maples).  And I don't blame her.  Yeah, she forced a couple shots - but she wasn't the only one.  But the leash was ridiculously short for her, especially  a player with her resume.  I'm wondering if something went on in practices leading up to this game.  Whatever, I hope/trust things get worked out with Carrington, who was a complete non-factor today.  More generally, Tara has to give groups on the floor more time to play and get into the flow.  It was only when she halted the player line subs that Stanford got some flow (and that's when Haley, in particular, got going).

3.  Interestingly, Lexie played the entire 1H (which stood in stark contrast to most of the sub patterns).  She started out hot, but grew fatigued as the half wore down - very predictably.  And was cold shooting later in 1H (i.e., 2Q).  Strange that Lexie didn't get some rest earlier than she did.  Overall, Lexie had a very strong game, so this is picking at the edges, but I think it could have been better with a little better PT management.

4.  Stanford really needs to work on being "strong with the ball."  Too many times balls were fumbled away, or grabbed for a moment, or not secured.  Gonzaga, otoh, was physically stronger and bullied Stanford around quite a bit.

5.  Last point:  Gonzaga is very well-coached.  That entire team boxed out, played hard for the entire game, and pursued their game plan to a tee.  I was impressed.

P.S.  I'd say Kiana is the most indispensable player on this very talented roster.

Co-signed on all of your takes.

On your second point, I was and am very surprised that DiJonai played far less than what I thought and expected she would be playing during the critical parts of the game (the fourth quarter and overtime) as one of our top players and a senior leader. It was startling to see her get yanked after only a few minutes on court. Yes, she was making some head-scratching decisions, but so were others. You would think Tara would want her out there, not just with the tangible skills she has scoring and defending, but also as the fearless, most experienced player in crunch time on our roster.

Some apparent friction between Tara and one of the guards? Now THAT's never happened before... :-)

[M T]

You know about those nightmares, where everything is stacked against you.  Well, that's what I saw when I walked in and saw it was Missy Barlow and Kyle Bacon as the two senior refs.    Maybe, just maybe, Daniel Webster had the greater challenge.

A technical issue that might not have been clear:  Late in the game (apparently OT 3:02), Stanford sorta gained possession and the ball was heading toward the Stanford basket, past the half court line, with (I think) Williams in front of the scrum.  Lexie was fouled by a player behind her, and the refs reviewed it.  I believe the review was to determine if this should be called an intentional foul (to prevent a fast break).  But when the foul was committed, we didn't have possession of the ball (it was being fought over), per Missy's hand signal after the review.  (A good call.)

As we saw, the refs impacted the game.  Any time a game is tight, a blown call (and I thought there were several) can alter the outcome.  Overzealous interpretation of the rules can also alter the outcome.  As we know, per the rules, there are fouls on almost any interaction on the court.  The refs get to call it as they see fit, missing fouls quite frequently and, all too often, calling fouls when there is legal contact rather than illegal contact.

While I'm still talking about refs, Belibi seemed to disagree with the ref about the held ball call late in the game, seemed to have a discussion with him, and then dropped the ball behind her back.  I expect she'll get educated about this, and I hope that's the last time we see that.  A technical on her at that point would have been a problem.

Haley Jones is listed as having a "technical foul".  I didn't see the hand signal when it was called, after a video review, but I believe she was given an "intentional foul".  From the one view of the replay I saw, I do think it was a legitimate attempt to make a play on the ball, it was not contact designed to negate an advantage (as it was an attempt to block the shot), and it did not involve the swinging of an elbow.   So, the only thing Missy could have called was that it was excessive or hard contact.  I did not think it was.   The fact that the player fell was not, I believe, due to any excessive or hard contact.  If they added a clause "Resulting in a risk to the opponent by her falling or colliding with an object or a person", then I'd agree.  But that's not in the rules currently, but that seems to be the criteria being used.

============

Unfortunately, I don't think this game is available for us fans to review online or see a replay on TV.  I'd like to watch it closer.

The refs weren't the reason this game was close.  My hat is off to the Gonzaga coach and her players for the play of her team.  She has only 2 returning starters.  She didn't have superstars in her last two recruiting classes.  But her players wanted it more and played at a faster pace than Stanford could handle.   By the time it got to the last 2 minutes of regulation, I felt a loss was a real possibility.

Turnovers were about even (15 Stanford vs 14 Gonzaga) and less than I expected from what I saw at the game.

Our FT% did manage to stay above 50% (58.6%), but that's pretty bad.  Our 3PT% was quite bad. 22.7%
22 fast break points sounds good, but Gonzaga had 18.
Stanford had the better shooting percentage  (2ptFG% 44.9% vs 34.8%) which is consistent with Stanford scoring 36pts in the paint vs 22pts.
That's a bit odd because Stanford players taller than 6'0" scored a total of 29pts (38.2%) while playing 50.2% of the time.
   (6'5" Prechtel 8pts (22min), 6'3" Jerome 2(16), 6'3" Fingall 2 (7), 6'1" Jones 11 (24), 6'1" Lacie Hull 3 (26), 6'1" Belibi 3 (18))
   That's due to the fast breaks and the cuts to the basket.

Gonzaga out rebounded Stanford slightly. 
   They got 14 OR on 43 missed shots (32.6%).  Stanford got 11 on 44 missed shots.(25.0%) [Not counting FT misses that led to rebounds]
   They got 26 DR on Stanford's 44 missed shots (59.1%).  Stanford got 28 on Gonzaga's 43 missed shots (65.1%)


Better shooting% would have helped, but I think the low percentage was due to the basic problem that the Gonzaga players were playing faster than Stanford was used to.  As a result, Stanford was rather hectic and that led to rushed shots.

Gonzaga wiped the Stanford defenders with good screens.  I'm pretty sure I saw one screen where the screener hip checked (slightly) our defender into the player she was trying to defend, resulting in a Stanford foul because the ref just sees the amplified 2nd contact.  I also saw screens that were illegal screens where the screener steps in front of the defender late, violating Rule 10, Section 5: Screen, Art. 3: "A player shall not ... © Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction."   I hope someone will remind Missy of this rule.  Too often it is an automatic call against the defender if they contact a stationary screener, even if the screener violated this rule by stepping in late.

Gonzaga also employed convergence of several (typically 3) players in a small area (usually under or just in front of the basket) to separate themselves from the defenders.  They would run past each other in 3 different directions, causing problems for any defender trying to hang with any one of them.  The defender can't just follow their player as that space has disappeared by a different opponent crossing it.  (Is there a name for this tactic?)

The box score indicates Williams, in the 2nd half, as hitting 6 of 10 (2 of 4 3PT), 4 of 6 FT,  2 DR, 1 TO, 1 A.  But I thought she was making more bad decisions and bad plays than that, esp. with a very few minutes left in the game.  I normally think of her as a pretty solid player, but my impression was she was playing a bit out of control.  But I don't see that reflected in the stats. (Her "shot" that hit the underside of the backboard counts as just one of her misses.)  Was I wrong?  Did others see her as running the offense properly in those last six minutes?

One clear thing that wasn't working right was our bringing the ball up the court.  Late in the 2nd Quarter, they sent 3 to trap the guard near the mid-court line, leaving 2 Gonzaga defensive players to guard 4 Stanford offensive players, but we didn't take advantage of it.  I figured that at halftime, Tara would get those players to drive to the basket immediately when they got the ball, but that's not what happened.  Gonzaga set up this attempted trap repeatedly in the 2nd half. Instead of attacking it and taking the advantage, Stanford dropped another offensive player (or two!) into the back court, slowing down our offense even more.  Yet, we were still getting trapped in the back court, not daring to cross the mid-court line with a dribble, but now had less opportunity to take advantage of the Gonzaga defensive gamble.

I noticed that in the last couple of minutes of regulation, Tara was just sitting in her chair.  To me it seemed like, if Stanford lost, she felt it would be a lesson they would take to heart, so she wasn't doing active direction of the players during play to facilitate the win.

Well, they say "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."  Stanford came oh so close to losing (which I'm sure will drop them in the polls) but I think they should have learned some important lessons.

[M T]

You know about those nightmares, where everything is stacked against you.  Well, that's what I saw when I walked in and saw it was Missy Barlow and Kyle Bacon as the two senior refs.    Maybe, just maybe, Daniel Webster had the greater challenge.

A technical issue that might not have been clear:  Late in the game (apparently OT 3:02), Stanford sorta gained possession and the ball was heading toward the Stanford basket, past the half court line, with (I think) Williams in front of the scrum.  Lexie was fouled by a player behind her, and the refs reviewed it.  I believe the review was to determine if this should be called an intentional foul (to prevent a fast break).  But when the foul was committed, we didn't have possession of the ball (it was being fought over), per Missy's hand signal after the review.  (A good call.)

As we saw, the refs impacted the game.  Any time a game is tight, a blown call (and I thought there were several) can alter the outcome.  Overzealous interpretation of the rules can also alter the outcome.  As we know, per the rules, there are fouls on almost any interaction on the court.  The refs get to call it as they see fit, missing fouls quite frequently and, all too often, calling fouls when there is legal contact rather than illegal contact.

While I'm still talking about refs, Belibi seemed to disagree with the ref about the held ball call late in the game, seemed to have a discussion with him, and then dropped the ball behind her back.  I expect she'll get educated about this, and I hope that's the last time we see that.  A technical on her at that point would have been a problem.

Haley Jones is listed as having a "technical foul".  I didn't see the hand signal when it was called, after a video review, but I believe she was given an "intentional foul".  From the one view of the replay I saw, I do think it was a legitimate attempt to make a play on the ball, it was not contact designed to negate an advantage (as it was an attempt to block the shot), and it did not involve the swinging of an elbow.   So, the only thing Missy could have called was that it was excessive or hard contact.  I did not think it was.   The fact that the player fell was not, I believe, due to any excessive or hard contact.  If they added a clause "Resulting in a risk to the opponent by her falling or colliding with an object or a person", then I'd agree.  But that's not in the rules currently, but that seems to be the criteria being used.

============

Unfortunately, I don't think this game is available for us fans to review online or see a replay on TV.  I'd like to watch it closer.

The refs weren't the reason this game was close.  My hat is off to the Gonzaga coach and her players for the play of her team.  She has only 2 returning starters.  She didn't have superstars in her last two recruiting classes.  But her players wanted it more and played at a faster pace than Stanford could handle.   By the time it got to the last 2 minutes of regulation, I felt a loss was a real possibility.

Turnovers were about even (15 Stanford vs 14 Gonzaga) and less than I expected from what I saw at the game.

Our FT% did manage to stay above 50% (58.6%), but that's pretty bad.  Our 3PT% was quite bad. 22.7%
22 fast break points sounds good, but Gonzaga had 18.
Stanford had the better shooting percentage  (2ptFG% 44.9% vs 34.8%) which is consistent with Stanford scoring 36pts in the paint vs 22pts.
That's a bit odd because Stanford players taller than 6'0" scored a total of 29pts (38.2%) while playing 50.2% of the time.
   (6'5" Prechtel 8pts (22min), 6'3" Jerome 2(16), 6'3" Fingall 2 (7), 6'1" Jones 11 (24), 6'1" Lacie Hull 3 (26), 6'1" Belibi 3 (18))
   That's due to the fast breaks and the cuts to the basket.

Gonzaga out rebounded Stanford slightly. 
   They got 14 OR on 43 missed shots (32.6%).  Stanford got 11 on 44 missed shots.(25.0%) [Not counting FT misses that led to rebounds]
   They got 26 DR on Stanford's 44 missed shots (59.1%).  Stanford got 28 on Gonzaga's 43 missed shots (65.1%)


Better shooting% would have helped, but I think the low percentage was due to the basic problem that the Gonzaga players were playing faster than Stanford was used to.  As a result, Stanford was rather hectic and that led to rushed shots.

Gonzaga wiped the Stanford defenders with good screens.  I'm pretty sure I saw one screen where the screener hip checked (slightly) our defender into the player she was trying to defend, resulting in a Stanford foul because the ref just sees the amplified 2nd contact.  I also saw screens that were illegal screens where the screener steps in front of the defender late, violating Rule 10, Section 5: Screen, Art. 3: "A player shall not ... © Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction."   I hope someone will remind Missy of this rule.  Too often it is an automatic call against the defender if they contact a stationary screener, even if the screener violated this rule by stepping in late.

Gonzaga also employed convergence of several (typically 3) players in a small area (usually under or just in front of the basket) to separate themselves from the defenders.  They would run past each other in 3 different directions, causing problems for any defender trying to hang with any one of them.  The defender can't just follow their player as that space has disappeared by a different opponent crossing it.  (Is there a name for this tactic?)

The box score indicates Williams, in the 2nd half, as hitting 6 of 10 (2 of 4 3PT), 4 of 6 FT,  2 DR, 1 TO, 1 A.  But I thought she was making more bad decisions and bad plays than that, esp. with a very few minutes left in the game.  I normally think of her as a pretty solid player, but my impression was she was playing a bit out of control.  But I don't see that reflected in the stats. (Her "shot" that hit the underside of the backboard counts as just one of her misses.)  Was I wrong?  Did others see her as running the offense properly in those last six minutes?

One clear thing that wasn't working right was our bringing the ball up the court.  Late in the 2nd Quarter, they sent 3 to trap the guard near the mid-court line, leaving 2 Gonzaga defensive players to guard 4 Stanford offensive players, but we didn't take advantage of it.  I figured that at halftime, Tara would get those players to drive to the basket immediately when they got the ball, but that's not what happened.  Gonzaga set up this attempted trap repeatedly in the 2nd half. Instead of attacking it and taking the advantage, Stanford dropped another offensive player (or two!) into the back court, slowing down our offense even more.  Yet, we were still getting trapped in the back court, not daring to cross the mid-court line with a dribble, but now had less opportunity to take advantage of the Gonzaga defensive gamble.

I noticed that in the last couple of minutes of regulation, Tara was just sitting in her chair.  To me it seemed like, if Stanford lost, she felt it would be a lesson they would take to heart, so she wasn't doing active direction of the players during play to facilitate the win.

Well, they say "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."  Stanford came oh so close to losing (which I'm sure will drop them in the polls) but I think they should have learned some important lessons.

[M T]

You missed that at some point around then, a Gonzaga player dribbled to the lane with the ball and jumped to shoot.  One of our players (probably Belibi, but don't quote me) got her hand on top of the ball (blocking the shot).  When the shooter landed, with both her hand and the defender's hand still on the ball, this is a held ball immediately (Rule 6-4.2, which also applies to a jump for a pass that is then pinned to the player's hand by a defender's hand)  That's why Missy kept showing the scorer a hand signal of one hand coming down on the other hand (which is NOT a signal in the rules). 

[If the defender's hand is no longer on the ball, and the ball never left the shooter's hand, I believe the correct call is a travel.  I've seen refs call it a held ball, but the rules are pretty clear it isn't. If the shooter lets go of the ball, then the ball falls (typically to the floor, but that probably isn't required); that's a block that anyone can recover, including the shooter.  I am not sure what to call it if the shooter dribbles the ball (starting while still off the ground); I think that should be a deflection and a new dribble, and legal even if the shooter had already picked up his/her dribble.]

At the time of the held ball, the arrow pointed at Gonzaga, so they got to inbound the ball (continuing their possession).  It was probably 4 possessions later (G (including the held ball, resulting in an inbounds on the end line away from the benches), S, G (the kicked ball was probably during this possession, where the two inbounds were on the end line near the benches), S) that Missy noticed the arrow was still pointed at Gonzaga.   She did not seem happy having to explain it to the scorer, who was not quick to change the arrow.

I think you'll find that a kicked ball is irrelevant to changing the possession arrow.  (I don't know where that quote came from.  Perhaps you were putting it as though Missy said it, and not really quoting anyone.  But if you were quoting someone, you're right to say it made no sense.)

At one point [I think in the 3rd quarter], when GU had the ball and the possession arrow was in GU's favor, we tied them up and a jump ball was called with 3 seconds left on the shot clock.  They took the ball in and, on the inbounds throw, Kiana apparently kicked it with her foot.  The shot clock was then re-set to 20 seconds -- which I understand, as that is the rule now for a kicked ball by the defense when the shot clock is under 20 seconds. 

What I DON'T understand, however, is that the possession arrow did NOT flip to Stanford, a fact which certainly confused a whole lot of people, including many at the scorer's bench, ...and me.  Missy came over during a break in play a minute later and explained to the scorer that, "because the kicked ball was a violation that occurred before anyone touched the ball on the inbounds play, the possession arrow does not change.  It's as if the jump ball never happened."

That doesn't make any sense to me, since the determination of who gets possession following the tie-up is based on the existing possession arrow and, as soon as that team gets the opportunity to throw it in [with the accompanying loss of the possession arrow], the game has moved on.  It seems to me that, whatever happens thereafter shouldn't impact the flipping of the possession arrow.

Can anyone confirm whether this is, in fact, the rule, or did Missy and the gang get it wrong?  And, if it is the rule, what is the rationale?

[M T]

You missed that at some point around then, a Gonzaga player dribbled to the lane with the ball and jumped to shoot.  One of our players (probably Belibi, but don't quote me) got her hand on top of the ball (blocking the shot).  When the shooter landed, with both her hand and the defender's hand still on the ball, this is a held ball immediately (Rule 6-4.2, which also applies to a jump for a pass that is then pinned to the player's hand by a defender's hand)  That's why Missy kept showing the scorer a hand signal of one hand coming down on the other hand (which is NOT a signal in the rules). 

[If the defender's hand is no longer on the ball, and the ball never left the shooter's hand, I believe the correct call is a travel.  I've seen refs call it a held ball, but the rules are pretty clear it isn't. If the shooter lets go of the ball, then the ball falls (typically to the floor, but that probably isn't required); that's a block that anyone can recover, including the shooter.  I am not sure what to call it if the shooter dribbles the ball (starting while still off the ground); I think that should be a deflection and a new dribble, and legal even if the shooter had already picked up his/her dribble.]

At the time of the held ball, the arrow pointed at Gonzaga, so they got to inbound the ball (continuing their possession).  It was probably 4 possessions later (G (including the held ball, resulting in an inbounds on the end line away from the benches), S, G (the kicked ball was probably during this possession, where the two inbounds were on the end line near the benches), S) that Missy noticed the arrow was still pointed at Gonzaga.   She did not seem happy having to explain it to the scorer, who was not quick to change the arrow.

I think you'll find that a kicked ball is irrelevant to changing the possession arrow.  (I don't know where that quote came from.  Perhaps you were putting it as though Missy said it, and not really quoting anyone.  But if you were quoting someone, you're right to say it made no sense.)

At one point [I think in the 3rd quarter], when GU had the ball and the possession arrow was in GU's favor, we tied them up and a jump ball was called with 3 seconds left on the shot clock.  They took the ball in and, on the inbounds throw, Kiana apparently kicked it with her foot.  The shot clock was then re-set to 20 seconds -- which I understand, as that is the rule now for a kicked ball by the defense when the shot clock is under 20 seconds. 

What I DON'T understand, however, is that the possession arrow did NOT flip to Stanford, a fact which certainly confused a whole lot of people, including many at the scorer's bench, ...and me.  Missy came over during a break in play a minute later and explained to the scorer that, "because the kicked ball was a violation that occurred before anyone touched the ball on the inbounds play, the possession arrow does not change.  It's as if the jump ball never happened."

That doesn't make any sense to me, since the determination of who gets possession following the tie-up is based on the existing possession arrow and, as soon as that team gets the opportunity to throw it in [with the accompanying loss of the possession arrow], the game has moved on.  It seems to me that, whatever happens thereafter shouldn't impact the flipping of the possession arrow.

Can anyone confirm whether this is, in fact, the rule, or did Missy and the gang get it wrong?  And, if it is the rule, what is the rationale?

[Hulk01]

Time to mention that I got to spend some time with Tara
back in my Athletic Board days. 
I was very impressed. 
Dick Gould and Conrad Ray, similar reaction--
and Jeremy Gunn--tempted to add there, of course.

[Hulk01]

Time to mention that I got to spend some time with Tara
back in my Athletic Board days. 
I was very impressed. 
Dick Gould and Conrad Ray, similar reaction--
and Jeremy Gunn--tempted to add there, of course.

[81alum]

Williams scored 20 of her 22 after the half.  Pretty amazing turnaround for her.  Her driving layup (that went in) forced overtime.  My impression of her second half play was very positive.

Apparently, the coaches instructed the team to drive more on the basket in the second half.  The instructions for the first half were to drive and dish.  Any insight into why this was the halftime adjustment and how well you thought it worked?

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

[81alum]

Williams scored 20 of her 22 after the half.  Pretty amazing turnaround for her.  Her driving layup (that went in) forced overtime.  My impression of her second half play was very positive.

Apparently, the coaches instructed the team to drive more on the basket in the second half.  The instructions for the first half were to drive and dish.  Any insight into why this was the halftime adjustment and how well you thought it worked?

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

[BobK]

Hate to agree with you Teejers but hands were the biggest problem :)

Dropped passes for sure but having them losing the rebound was a killer. Over and over we had then lost the rebound because we couldn’t hold onto the ball

Need work on hands

But bottom line we have Hulls especially Lexie last night and the Spokane home team doesn’t

[BobK]

Hate to agree with you Teejers but hands were the biggest problem :)

Dropped passes for sure but having them losing the rebound was a killer. Over and over we had then lost the rebound because we couldn’t hold onto the ball

Need work on hands

But bottom line we have Hulls especially Lexie last night and the Spokane home team doesn’t

[bl82]

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

Any chance there was something physical plaguing Di yesterday? Otherwise I don't understand keeping the heart of the team off the floor, even if she is having an off day.

[bl82]

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

Any chance there was something physical plaguing Di yesterday? Otherwise I don't understand keeping the heart of the team off the floor, even if she is having an off day.

[BobK]

Carrington was at the men’s game Saturday night looking great. So was t sick or whatever then.

[BobK]

Carrington was at the men’s game Saturday night looking great. So was t sick or whatever then.

[81alum]

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

Any chance there was something physical plaguing Di yesterday?  Otherwise I don't understand keeping the heart of the team off the floor, even if she is having an off day.

Exactly.  See the contrast with Williams.  Williams was having just as bad a day as Carrington in the first half, but Tara kept her in and she had a remarkable turnaround in the 2nd half.  Would Carrington have gotten it figured out with more time in game?  Tara knows a lot more than we do, and Tara's decisions ultimately worked.  

Did anyone notice who Carrington was guarding in the first half?  Maybe there were defensive issues?  I did notice when D came into the second half she was guarding in the post and trying to deny them the ball.

I wish we could replay the game.  Who had the task of guarding Jenn Wirth?  We did an amazing defensive job on her.

A few tidbits from the post game press conference:

The Gonzaga coach was asked about their defensive success, especially in the first half.  "We followed the game plan.   Ball pressure was heavy so their ball handler would not have time to make decisions.  We played good weakside defense.  We have only a couple of very strong defenders but played good team defense."

Tara came out and noted several times that Gonzaga was "extremely aggressive and physical."  In addition "we struggled from three."  "We needed to take better shots.  We won't win big games going 5 for 23."  Asked about Carrington "It's hard when things aren't going your way, but I am proud of D" for handling the situation.

Asked about the start of the game, "Our team at first wasn't aggressive.  We were taking long threes when we needed to go inside more."

[81alum]

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

Any chance there was something physical plaguing Di yesterday?  Otherwise I don't understand keeping the heart of the team off the floor, even if she is having an off day.

Exactly.  See the contrast with Williams.  Williams was having just as bad a day as Carrington in the first half, but Tara kept her in and she had a remarkable turnaround in the 2nd half.  Would Carrington have gotten it figured out with more time in game?  Tara knows a lot more than we do, and Tara's decisions ultimately worked.  

Did anyone notice who Carrington was guarding in the first half?  Maybe there were defensive issues?  I did notice when D came into the second half she was guarding in the post and trying to deny them the ball.

I wish we could replay the game.  Who had the task of guarding Jenn Wirth?  We did an amazing defensive job on her.

A few tidbits from the post game press conference:

The Gonzaga coach was asked about their defensive success, especially in the first half.  "We followed the game plan.   Ball pressure was heavy so their ball handler would not have time to make decisions.  We played good weakside defense.  We have only a couple of very strong defenders but played good team defense."

Tara came out and noted several times that Gonzaga was "extremely aggressive and physical."  In addition "we struggled from three."  "We needed to take better shots.  We won't win big games going 5 for 23."  Asked about Carrington "It's hard when things aren't going your way, but I am proud of D" for handling the situation.

Asked about the start of the game, "Our team at first wasn't aggressive.  We were taking long threes when we needed to go inside more."

[mbdude]

Game article from Spokane Spokesman

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/n...ot-win-ov/

[mbdude]

Game article from Spokane Spokesman

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/n...ot-win-ov/

[CompSci87]

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

Any chance there was something physical plaguing Di yesterday?  Otherwise I don't understand keeping the heart of the team off the floor, even if she is having an off day.

Di got bowled over early on trying to take a charge. If there was anything physical rather than just an off night, maybe it started there.

Being unhappy with the refs may have started there too!

[CompSci87]

Carrington did not seem happy even when she was on the floor last night.  Something was not right.  Hopefully this was a one game aberration.  She had the most amazing fourth quarter against Gonzaga a year ago--almost pulled it out for us.

Any chance there was something physical plaguing Di yesterday?  Otherwise I don't understand keeping the heart of the team off the floor, even if she is having an off day.

Di got bowled over early on trying to take a charge. If there was anything physical rather than just an off night, maybe it started there.

Being unhappy with the refs may have started there too!

[CompSci87]

Apparently, the coaches instructed the team to drive more on the basket in the second half.  The instructions for the first half were to drive and dish.  Any insight into why this was the halftime adjustment and how well you thought it worked?

My inexpert thought: Gonzaga was making the penetrate and pitch approach difficult. When they collapsed on the ball handler, their timing and aggressiveness was such that it wasn't easy to find someone to pass to. But they were so aggressive that it worked better to keep driving and draw a foul.

[CompSci87]

Apparently, the coaches instructed the team to drive more on the basket in the second half.  The instructions for the first half were to drive and dish.  Any insight into why this was the halftime adjustment and how well you thought it worked?

My inexpert thought: Gonzaga was making the penetrate and pitch approach difficult. When they collapsed on the ball handler, their timing and aggressiveness was such that it wasn't easy to find someone to pass to. But they were so aggressive that it worked better to keep driving and draw a foul.

[mbdude]

From the Boneyard in a thread discussing Missy Barlow

'I did a quick calculation for all PAC-12 games last season in which Stanford played, and non-Missy ref'd games averaged 31.1 fouls per game, while Missy-ref'd games averaged 38.3 fouls per game, so games with Missy at the helm had, on average, 25% more fouls. At least I'm not hallucinating...

 As to Dijonai, I also felt something was wrong - she didn't seem to have any "hop", and her 2 free throws weren't close

[mbdude]

From the Boneyard in a thread discussing Missy Barlow

'I did a quick calculation for all PAC-12 games last season in which Stanford played, and non-Missy ref'd games averaged 31.1 fouls per game, while Missy-ref'd games averaged 38.3 fouls per game, so games with Missy at the helm had, on average, 25% more fouls. At least I'm not hallucinating...

 As to Dijonai, I also felt something was wrong - she didn't seem to have any "hop", and her 2 free throws weren't close

[BosCard]

From the Boneyard in a thread discussing Missy Barlow

'I did a quick calculation for all PAC-12 games last season in which Stanford played, and non-Missy ref'd games averaged 31.1 fouls per game, while Missy-ref'd games averaged 38.3 fouls per game, so games with Missy at the helm had, on average, 25% more fouls. At least I'm not hallucinating...

 As to Dijonai, I also felt something was wrong - she didn't seem to have any "hop", and her 2 free throws weren't close

I think Carrington had an off night and we have depth such that if someone isn't playing great then Tara is more than willing to give someone else a try.  Last year we didn't have anyone who could drive and finish over players the way Carrington can.  This year we have a healthy Lexie and Jones who can give it a try.  I also think Tara was frustrated at the rebounding from Fingall and Jerome which is why Belibi and Prechtel played most of the center minutes in the second half.

[BosCard]

From the Boneyard in a thread discussing Missy Barlow

'I did a quick calculation for all PAC-12 games last season in which Stanford played, and non-Missy ref'd games averaged 31.1 fouls per game, while Missy-ref'd games averaged 38.3 fouls per game, so games with Missy at the helm had, on average, 25% more fouls. At least I'm not hallucinating...

 As to Dijonai, I also felt something was wrong - she didn't seem to have any "hop", and her 2 free throws weren't close

I think Carrington had an off night and we have depth such that if someone isn't playing great then Tara is more than willing to give someone else a try.  Last year we didn't have anyone who could drive and finish over players the way Carrington can.  This year we have a healthy Lexie and Jones who can give it a try.  I also think Tara was frustrated at the rebounding from Fingall and Jerome which is why Belibi and Prechtel played most of the center minutes in the second half.

[teejers1]

A few tidbits from the post game press conference:

The Gonzaga coach was asked about their defensive success, especially in the first half.  "We followed the game plan.   Ball pressure was heavy so their ball handler would not have time to make decisions.  We played good weakside defense.  We have only a couple of very strong defenders but played good team defense."

I meant to include the highlighted provision above in my initial comments.  Gonzaga's off-ball, or weakside defense was flipping tremendous.  Another reason I was very impressed with the Zags' coaching/preparation.

BTW, #32 on Gonzaga was a load inside, and took Lexie to the paint a couple times and went to work.  Think she also hit a brobdingnagian trey late to beat the buzzer.  Anyway, when Carrington came in late Q4 and OT, they put her on her, and I thought Carrington did pretty well.  [I also think Carrington whacked that player with an elbow in 1H that the refs didn't see, and it actually crossed my mind that perhaps that contributed to Tara's PT decisions, though I don't think it likely].

[teejers1]

A few tidbits from the post game press conference:

The Gonzaga coach was asked about their defensive success, especially in the first half.  "We followed the game plan.   Ball pressure was heavy so their ball handler would not have time to make decisions.  We played good weakside defense.  We have only a couple of very strong defenders but played good team defense."

I meant to include the highlighted provision above in my initial comments.  Gonzaga's off-ball, or weakside defense was flipping tremendous.  Another reason I was very impressed with the Zags' coaching/preparation.

BTW, #32 on Gonzaga was a load inside, and took Lexie to the paint a couple times and went to work.  Think she also hit a brobdingnagian trey late to beat the buzzer.  Anyway, when Carrington came in late Q4 and OT, they put her on her, and I thought Carrington did pretty well.  [I also think Carrington whacked that player with an elbow in 1H that the refs didn't see, and it actually crossed my mind that perhaps that contributed to Tara's PT decisions, though I don't think it likely].

[Viking_Guy]

A couple of more things.

(1) Speaking as someone who has trouble getting to the games in person, I HATE the fact that Stanford pulls their live webstream from the feed that goes to the scoreboard.  Because it incorporates all the stupid crap the scoreboard operator does, like show replays that are 8-10 seconds long in the middle of live action.

But the pièce de résistance was last night.  On Gonzaga's last possession in regulation time, with the game tied.  The ENTIRE possession, the screen only showed the friggin' "MAKE NOISE" graphic that was obviously flashing on the scoreboard.  The most critical point of the game, and the web audience can't see the action at all.

(2) I think a large part of Stanford's success this season is going to hinge on whether they can develop any inside offensive game from the 4 and 5.  One reason Gonzaga was able to maintain both their ball pressure and their weakside defense is that no one was coming off a player in order to defend the post.  Posting up the Hulls was a very clever move by Tara and staff, especially in the OT.  But that was also because we didn't have a better back to the basket option.

I think it would be interesting to see what happen if Stanford played a lot more "inverted" sets - with wings down low and posts up high.  Or with the "post" player in the set being a little rather than a big.  I know against Tennessee we're going to be in trouble if we can't force their posts away from the basket - their length is going to be a nightmare. Luckily, it's at home.

(3) Ah, Missy.  The one I couldn't understand was when she (or maybe it was one of the others) essentially iced our free-throw shooter by stopping the game for more than a minute while a conversation was going on at the scorer's table, with everyone already in position in the lane and our shooter (Kiana?) standing at the line.

And the "Missy bump" in called fouls is an interesting bit of data.


In any case, a lot of the issues I saw were "youth" issues - first game under real pressure, a lot of turnovers looked to be because of unexpected movement by the receiver, etc.  Even some of the ones by Kiana - I remember a travel called on her because she pulled her dribble to pass and had to try to hang on to the ball because the intended recipient had made a cut.  Of course, she probably pulled her dribble early.

But those youth issues were also why I had a bit of trouble with Carrington sitting so much of the second half.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

A couple of more things.

(1) Speaking as someone who has trouble getting to the games in person, I HATE the fact that Stanford pulls their live webstream from the feed that goes to the scoreboard.  Because it incorporates all the stupid crap the scoreboard operator does, like show replays that are 8-10 seconds long in the middle of live action.

But the pièce de résistance was last night.  On Gonzaga's last possession in regulation time, with the game tied.  The ENTIRE possession, the screen only showed the friggin' "MAKE NOISE" graphic that was obviously flashing on the scoreboard.  The most critical point of the game, and the web audience can't see the action at all.

(2) I think a large part of Stanford's success this season is going to hinge on whether they can develop any inside offensive game from the 4 and 5.  One reason Gonzaga was able to maintain both their ball pressure and their weakside defense is that no one was coming off a player in order to defend the post.  Posting up the Hulls was a very clever move by Tara and staff, especially in the OT.  But that was also because we didn't have a better back to the basket option.

I think it would be interesting to see what happen if Stanford played a lot more "inverted" sets - with wings down low and posts up high.  Or with the "post" player in the set being a little rather than a big.  I know against Tennessee we're going to be in trouble if we can't force their posts away from the basket - their length is going to be a nightmare. Luckily, it's at home.

(3) Ah, Missy.  The one I couldn't understand was when she (or maybe it was one of the others) essentially iced our free-throw shooter by stopping the game for more than a minute while a conversation was going on at the scorer's table, with everyone already in position in the lane and our shooter (Kiana?) standing at the line.

And the "Missy bump" in called fouls is an interesting bit of data.


In any case, a lot of the issues I saw were "youth" issues - first game under real pressure, a lot of turnovers looked to be because of unexpected movement by the receiver, etc.  Even some of the ones by Kiana - I remember a travel called on her because she pulled her dribble to pass and had to try to hang on to the ball because the intended recipient had made a cut.  Of course, she probably pulled her dribble early.

But those youth issues were also why I had a bit of trouble with Carrington sitting so much of the second half.

VG

[jonnyss]

regarding the long stoppages of play, many of us in the stands had been calling for flagrant fouls on the gonzaga player who was swinging her elbows. the refs did indeed then call 2 flagrant 1's - one on each team. the stoppages were to review to decide common vs flagrant. the announcer said intentional, but there was no arms crossed above the head signal for intentional foul. certainly, they were for some kind of rough play. i myself didn't mind because it kept gonzaga in check more than us. they had been whacking us way more than we were whacking them

i was quite impressed with gonzaga's screens. ours paled in comparison. we got, i believe, 3 fouls for knocking over their screener.

they seemed really quick on defense. for stanford, both hulls, anna wilson, and kiana were also quick. fran and haley aren't quick to position, but have quick hands and long arms.

[jonnyss]

regarding the long stoppages of play, many of us in the stands had been calling for flagrant fouls on the gonzaga player who was swinging her elbows. the refs did indeed then call 2 flagrant 1's - one on each team. the stoppages were to review to decide common vs flagrant. the announcer said intentional, but there was no arms crossed above the head signal for intentional foul. certainly, they were for some kind of rough play. i myself didn't mind because it kept gonzaga in check more than us. they had been whacking us way more than we were whacking them

i was quite impressed with gonzaga's screens. ours paled in comparison. we got, i believe, 3 fouls for knocking over their screener.

they seemed really quick on defense. for stanford, both hulls, anna wilson, and kiana were also quick. fran and haley aren't quick to position, but have quick hands and long arms.

[Spiny_Norman]

Another reason I was puzzled not to see more Carrington - she is often Stanford's best rebounder. She has a great instinct for where a missed shot will end up, gets strong position and rarely loses a rebound in traffic. She was 2nd on the team in boards per game last season.

[Spiny_Norman]

Another reason I was puzzled not to see more Carrington - she is often Stanford's best rebounder. She has a great instinct for where a missed shot will end up, gets strong position and rarely loses a rebound in traffic. She was 2nd on the team in boards per game last season.

[CompSci87]

Someone captured the live stream and put it on YouTube. If you want to rewatch and analyze: https://youtu.be/dh0nVibEQpw

[CompSci87]

Someone captured the live stream and put it on YouTube. If you want to rewatch and analyze: https://youtu.be/dh0nVibEQpw

[CompSci87]

[Edited to correct my being a year out of date. Thanks, MT.]

There have been multiple changes in terminology over the last few years. NCAA MBB and WBB first changed to follow NBA terminology, then WBB changed again to follow FIBA, but the men didn't. Personally I think the change to use FIBA terminology was a bad idea. Then this year WBB changed again!

This wiki link isn't up to date right now with the change for the 2019-20 season:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrant_foul#NCAA

Rough summary:

NCAA MBB and NBA	NCAA WBB and FIBA	NCAA prior to 2011	Penalty
Flagrant 1	NCAA WBB: Changed from Unsportsmanlike to Intentional for 2019-20; FIBA: Unsportsmanlike	Intentional	2 shots and loss of possession.
Flagrant 2	Disqualifying	Flagrant	2 shots, loss of possession, player is ejected.
Technical	Technical	Technical	Varies, 1 or 2 shots, with or without loss of possession.

[CompSci87]

[Edited to correct my being a year out of date. Thanks, MT.]

There have been multiple changes in terminology over the last few years. NCAA MBB and WBB first changed to follow NBA terminology, then WBB changed again to follow FIBA, but the men didn't. Personally I think the change to use FIBA terminology was a bad idea. Then this year WBB changed again!

This wiki link isn't up to date right now with the change for the 2019-20 season:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrant_foul#NCAA

Rough summary:

NCAA MBB and NBA	NCAA WBB and FIBA	NCAA prior to 2011	Penalty
Flagrant 1	NCAA WBB: Changed from Unsportsmanlike to Intentional for 2019-20; FIBA: Unsportsmanlike	Intentional	2 shots and loss of possession.
Flagrant 2	Disqualifying	Flagrant	2 shots, loss of possession, player is ejected.
Technical	Technical	Technical	Varies, 1 or 2 shots, with or without loss of possession.