WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - Printable Version

WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 (/thread-24794.html)

Pages: 1 2

WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - 81alum - 02-13-2024

Preview: Cal, 7pm Friday, Pac 12 Bay Area

Friday we take on Cal at Maples for the only game of the weekend. What an oddity of scheduling--the thick of the season and just the one game.

We last played Cal on December 29 at Haas, and prevailed 78-51. That was the game when Lepolo hit 6 treys and silenced her critics, at least for a while.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=24681&pid=405883&highlight=wbb%3A+Stanford+78#pid405883

Since that game Cal has gone 5-7 in Pac 12 play, sweeping both Washington schools and beating Oregon, but losing to the mountain schools, the Arizona schools, the SoCal schools, and Oregon State. Massey has them at 56, NET at 51, and they are 7th place in the Pac-12. While Cal leads the bottom tier of the Pac 12, they are coming off a very successful road trip to the Washington schools.

When we last played them their star offensive transfer player—5’10” grad transfer guard Ioanna Krimili—was not fully back from injury. Now she is and she is and she is performing well. She had 14 against the stout Washington defense.

Marta Suarez, the 6’3” Tennessee transfer, also had 14 against Washington, and MacIntosh continues to play well. One oddity: Michelle Onyiah, the 6’3” starting forward we are all familiar with, only played 7 minutes. I do not know if she was hurt, but in general the transfer players seem to be working out well and soaking up lots of minutes.

Also keep an eye on yet another transfer, Mikayla Williams, from Gonzaga. She comes off the bench but often plays more than 20 minutes.

Cal is a decent three point shooting team, averaging 8 makes a game. Krimili, for example, was 3/6 in their last game. But they are well balanced. With Suarez and Onyiah they at least have two solid forwards to put up against our two, and with McIntosh and Krimili they may have the advantage at guard.

I believe that the Cal team we will see on Friday will be a better team than the one we played in December. The transfer players are now better integrated into their roster, and Krimili is back to full health. Tara said as much after that win—the Cal was not at full strength, and Tara clearly had been prepping the team for Krimili. Now Cal is playing better and is on something of a roll after they matched our results in Washington. On the other hand, with just one game to prepare for, our scouting report is going to be even better than usual.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - WBB fan - 02-13-2024

Thanka for the great preview

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - petersalas - 02-14-2024

This is their pink game, but they wore the white with pink trim vs UCLA… maybe that was just the TV Kay Yow game because I don’t recall 2 pink games in the same season..

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - StanFanFam13 - 02-14-2024

(02-14-2024, 07:05 AM)petersalas Wrote: This is their pink game, but they wore the white with pink trim vs UCLA… maybe that was just the TV Kay Yow game because I don’t recall 2 pink games in the same season..

Someone (I think it was Kate?) confirmed at the post-UCLA "behind the bench" talk that they do indeed have two pink games this season. It is, as you point out, unusual—but I suppose there are worse things than extra breast cancer awareness!

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - petersalas - 02-14-2024

My mother in law died of breast cancer and she was one of the most special people in the world so I love this. My comment was not intended like it was a bad thing. I just pointed it out because I thought it was odd to not promote the UCLA game as the pink game and thought darn.. I didn’t know and could have looked for something pink to wear.

But I do appreciate the explanation. My curious mind is satisfied.

Now I think I’ll wear my Stanford jersey with pink trim Friday

(02-14-2024, 07:47 AM)StanFanFam13 Wrote:
(02-14-2024, 07:05 AM)petersalas Wrote: This is their pink game, but they wore the white with pink trim vs UCLA… maybe that was just the TV Kay Yow game because I don’t recall 2 pink games in the same season..

Someone (I think it was Kate?) confirmed at the post-UCLA "behind the bench" talk that they do indeed have two pink games this season. It is, as you point out, unusual—but I suppose there are worse things than extra breast cancer awareness!

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - WBB fan - 02-14-2024

I appreciate the annual observations and support of those with breast cancer. My sister-in-law died of it, and more than a few friends have had it. But I do wish the color were something other than pink. Not my favorite color.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - StanFanFam13 - 02-15-2024

(02-14-2024, 08:16 AM)petersalas Wrote: My mother in law died of breast cancer and she was one of the most special people in the world so I love this. My comment was not intended like it was a bad thing. I just pointed it out because I thought it was odd to not promote the UCLA game as the pink game and thought darn.. I didn’t know and could have looked for something pink to wear.

But I do appreciate the explanation. My curious mind is satisfied.

Now I think I’ll wear my Stanford jersey with pink trim Friday

(02-14-2024, 07:47 AM)StanFanFam13 Wrote:
(02-14-2024, 07:05 AM)petersalas Wrote: This is their pink game, but they wore the white with pink trim vs UCLA… maybe that was just the TV Kay Yow game because I don’t recall 2 pink games in the same season..

Someone (I think it was Kate?) confirmed at the post-UCLA "behind the bench" talk that they do indeed have two pink games this season. It is, as you point out, unusual—but I suppose there are worse things than extra breast cancer awareness!

My bad... hard to convey tone via text, and I realize my offbeat enthusiasm could have come across as snark. I never took your comment as a bad thing (although now I'm wishing that I too had a Stanford jersey with pink trim!).

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - BobK - 02-15-2024

In the ncaa committee Stanford is the overall 2 seed. Also a Colorado a 1 seed 4 overall

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - M T - 02-15-2024

In case the wording confuses people, Stanford was listed as a #1 seed, 2nd overall

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - chrisk - 02-15-2024

(02-15-2024, 05:02 PM)BobK Wrote: In the ncaa committee Stanford is the overall 2 seed. Also a Colorado a 1 seed 4 overall

If they make the Final Four they can stay over to Monday and see the total solar eclipse in Cleveland.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - petersalas - 02-15-2024

Thank you for taking the time to respond again… I’m having second thoughts about my jersey because the lettering is cardinal red but the trim is pink and it does have the ribbon.. I’ll see what I decide tomorrow but thinking I’d like to participate in the pink theme.

(02-15-2024, 09:32 AM)StanFanFam13 Wrote:
(02-14-2024, 08:16 AM)petersalas Wrote: My mother in law died of breast cancer and she was one of the most special people in the world so I love this. My comment was not intended like it was a bad thing. I just pointed it out because I thought it was odd to not promote the UCLA game as the pink game and thought darn.. I didn’t know and could have looked for something pink to wear.

But I do appreciate the explanation. My curious mind is satisfied.

Now I think I’ll wear my Stanford jersey with pink trim Friday

(02-14-2024, 07:47 AM)StanFanFam13 Wrote:
(02-14-2024, 07:05 AM)petersalas Wrote: This is their pink game, but they wore the white with pink trim vs UCLA… maybe that was just the TV Kay Yow game because I don’t recall 2 pink games in the same season..

Someone (I think it was Kate?) confirmed at the post-UCLA "behind the bench" talk that they do indeed have two pink games this season. It is, as you point out, unusual—but I suppose there are worse things than extra breast cancer awareness!

My bad... hard to convey tone via text, and I realize my offbeat enthusiasm could have come across as snark. I never took your comment as a bad thing (although now I'm wishing that I too had a Stanford jersey with pink trim!).

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - pefloresjr - 02-15-2024

(02-15-2024, 09:32 PM)petersalas Wrote: Thank you for taking the time to respond again… I’m having second thoughts about my jersey because the lettering is cardinal red but the trim is pink and it does have the ribbon.. I’ll see what I decide tomorrow but thinking I’d like to participate in the pink theme.

(02-15-2024, 09:32 AM)StanFanFam13 Wrote:
(02-14-2024, 08:16 AM)petersalas Wrote: My mother in law died of breast cancer and she was one of the most special people in the world so I love this. My comment was not intended like it was a bad thing. I just pointed it out because I thought it was odd to not promote the UCLA game as the pink game and thought darn.. I didn’t know and could have looked for something pink to wear.

But I do appreciate the explanation. My curious mind is satisfied.

Now I think I’ll wear my Stanford jersey with pink trim Friday

(02-14-2024, 07:47 AM)StanFanFam13 Wrote:
(02-14-2024, 07:05 AM)petersalas Wrote: This is their pink game, but they wore the white with pink trim vs UCLA… maybe that was just the TV Kay Yow game because I don’t recall 2 pink games in the same season..

Someone (I think it was Kate?) confirmed at the post-UCLA "behind the bench" talk that they do indeed have two pink games this season. It is, as you point out, unusual—but I suppose there are worse things than extra breast cancer awareness!

My bad... hard to convey tone via text, and I realize my offbeat enthusiasm could have come across as snark. I never took your comment as a bad thing (although now I'm wishing that I too had a Stanford jersey with pink trim!).

They sell pink Stanford hats at the track house. I'll be wearing mine tomorrow!

Cheers,
Pete F.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - M T - 02-15-2024

(02-15-2024, 08:54 PM)chrisk Wrote:
(02-15-2024, 05:02 PM)BobK Wrote: In the ncaa committee Stanford is the overall 2 seed. Also a Colorado a 1 seed 4 overall
If they make the Final Four they can stay over to Monday and see the total solar eclipse in Cleveland.

You mean “hope to see”. There is a data set out there with two Cleveland locations, one of which shows 24% chance of clear or few clouds while the other shows 48% chance. Based on the general area, I would believe the former is a better estimate.

I haven’t checked but flights, hotels and cars may be very hard to come by and expensive. (They are for Austin that weekend). The roads may be clogged on Monday

But, if you’re going, do stay over in case you’re lucky. The next one in the US won’t be until Tara’s in her 58th year of coaching, around 2700 wins

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - Griffins78 - 02-16-2024

I have 2 extra tickets for tonight's game. Lower section mid court - let me know

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Cal, Friday 7pm - mbdude - 02-16-2024

some bogus foul calls on Brink tonight
the 1 on Jump a head scratcher also

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - 81alum - 02-16-2024

I guess we were all at the game--only 1 post after the game start.

My observations:

1) At the chalk talk Kate talked about the disappointment with our offense on the Washington trip. We were not running as well as we were earlier in the year, but the main emphasis in practice this week was on "running offense" in the half court. Player position, player movement, ball movement. In a humorous moment, she said "the good news is that we became completely unscoutable, since no one, including ourselves, can know what the heck we were doing." I think we saw the results of a week of that practice tonight with 55% field goal shooting.

2) I do believe that Cal is an improved team from last time, but they did not look like it tonight. Our defense was awesome. Different people guarded Krimili, Cal's best player, and Krimili was 1/5 with no treys.

3) There was concern when Iriafen went out of the game with a lame hamstring. It appears to have been a cramp. She came back in.

4) At halftime the Cardboarders gathered to compare notes--there were half a dozen or more of us. The worst thing we could say was "no band, no dollies, no cheerleaders, no MC, no DJ." What the heck happened? I was wondering if they were all at a evening vigil for Navalny. As faculty at the time, I remember going to such a vigil on campus after Tiananmen Square and I think every student on campus was there. Just speculation on my part, given that Dasha is (still?) a student. In any case, the atmosphere at the game was not affected too much--there were still a healthy 4600 cheering on the team. But I was a bit distracted as reality had a way of intruding on my thoughts.

5) Can't let it go unremarked that Iriafen had yet another superb game, and Jump is doing quite well, seemingly over her slump. Jump was 6/7 and only 1/1 from three point range. She has turned into a complete offensive player. Brink played less than half the game given the curious fouls that were called on her and given the size of our lead.

6) At one point Marta Suarez tried to punch the ball out of one of our players' grip. There was plenty of booing but nothing was called. I presume that this is not football where punching the ball is a fairly accepted part of trying to cause a fumble. What are the rules on this in basketball? Can you punch, so long as you hit ball and not player?

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - CompSci87 - 02-16-2024

Quote:Can you punch, so long as you hit ball and not player?

In short, yes. No kicking, though. :-)

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - 81alum - 02-17-2024

(02-16-2024, 10:31 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
Quote:Can you punch, so long as you hit ball and not player?

In short, yes. No kicking, though. :-)

Ah, Marquess of Queensberry rules!

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - M T - 02-17-2024

(02-16-2024, 10:31 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
Quote:Can you punch, so long as you hit ball and not player?

In short, yes. No kicking, though. :-)

Actually., it is a violation, equivalent to kicking the ball.

Quote:Rule 9 Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below
Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with
the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below.

I missed it; when did that happen?

Q3 8:00 After Brink tied up the ball, and the opponent swung back at her, but the ref called a foul on Brink (which I don't see in replay), Tara asked for a replay review for an intentional or disqualifying foul. The refs apparently ruled that the action was not a swinging of the arm or elbow. As you recall,

Quote:Rule 10. Section 6. Art. 7. The following shall be considered not only excessive, but extreme,
swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot;
--
Rule 10. Sect. 10. Art. 16. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
b. Is excessive per Rule 10-6.7 is a disqualifying foul.

The force of the impact, if any, doesn't matter. The speed and potential impact does matter if contact wasn't made. Technically, the action does fall under that rule, but so would a lot of other swinging arms and elbows. If the rule were applied, hopefully after the erroneous ruling last week, these refs would have been aware that it triggers a disqualifying foul. I can see why they would hesitate to call it. I wonder if Missy would have. A few years ago, I think she would have.

The review can not give or remove a common foul. Having not ruled that action as being under rule 10-6.7, and obviously seeing that Brink had her hand on the ball, the refs may have given Brink a Get-out-of-Foul card (that was Brink's third and final foul call), and kept a closer eye on Suárez (she had 2 fouls at that point, and was called for 2 more, but finished the game).

A timeout is charged to Stanford when the review does not find an intentional or disqualifying foul. I think it was worth it, to protect Brink.

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - 81alum - 02-17-2024

(02-17-2024, 08:05 AM)M T Wrote:
(02-16-2024, 10:31 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
Quote:Can you punch, so long as you hit ball and not player?

In short, yes. No kicking, though. :-)
No, it is a violation, equivalent to kicking the ball.

Quote:Rule 9 Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below
Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with
the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below.

Thanks MT! I guess the reason a foul was not called may have been that she missed. Or that the officials just didn't see it. The booing was lusty on my side.

On a different matter, anyone know what Tara saw that made her request a review? The announcers may have explained, but in the stands all I could tell was Tara complained about an elbow and seems to have gotten the officials to do a review.