WBB NCAA tournament - Printable Version

WBB NCAA tournament - 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 NCAA tournament (/thread-23051.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - teejers1 - 03-24-2022

(03-24-2022, 01:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(03-24-2022, 01:05 PM)M T Wrote: HEY EVERYBODY,

Please take a breath and consider not posting, even if you think you need to.
But if you do post, please try to tone things down.

Let's just try to enjoy Stanford sports.

Thanks.

Thank you for the reminder. I deleted my post. Sorry, Teejers, for having called you out; I shouldn’t have done so.

BC

I didn't read it; regardless, no need to apologize. I can stand being called out (assuming that's what you did).
I will say this, though: when I make allegations or state an opinion, I freely admit to it as such. I don't believe I've said "X happened" - especially if it's ripping on someone's reputation - and just said "I'm right, I don't need to source/substantiate my accusation."

To answer lefty: I didn't see Texas in this tourney play but was impressed with Ohio State over LSU. But I still feel Stanford matches up okay with tOSU. Texas . . . I'm torn. If you can assure a W for Stanford, then hell yes, let's avenge prior loss. But therein lies the rub . . .

Right now, though, Maryland looks to be daunting enough.

(03-24-2022, 02:21 PM)crackpot Wrote:
(03-24-2022, 11:42 AM)WBB fan Wrote:
(03-24-2022, 10:59 AM)BobK Wrote: Here’s something. I’m right. I don’t have to be proven right.

Self confidence will get you everywhere. Besides which, as far as I'm concerned, "in Bob, we trust."

For sure.

I believe he is referring to the statement made in 2012 as to whether she has ever had a gay player on her team: “Don’t ask me that. I don’t ask that. I don’t think it’s anybody’s business. Whoever you are. I don’t care to know that.”

When ESPN reporter Kate Fagan wrote Griner's coming out story, Mulkey tried to get her fired.

...and in 2017 in response to Baylor's massive sexual assault problems by its football players: "If somebody's around you, and they ever say, 'I will never send my daughter to Baylor,' you knock them right in the face." She later apologized.

crackpot, you may be right (per prior link). But those quotes from Mulkey are entirely different than what Bob posited.
And I'll leave it at that.

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - CompSci87 - 03-24-2022

In the WNIT, UCLA vs Wyoming is going into triple overtime. Quite a game!

UCLA wins 82-81

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - DaBears17 - 03-24-2022

(03-24-2022, 08:03 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: In the WNIT, UCLA vs Wyoming is going into triple overtime. Quite a game!

UCLA wins 82-81

Thanks! Caught most of 3rd OT.

They play winner of Oregon State-New Mexico.

Oregon State down 67-64 with 5 minutes left.

Beavers win 78-73

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - TheWildJacko - 03-24-2022

(03-24-2022, 03:21 PM)Leftcoast Wrote: So any thoughts on Texas vs Ohio State? Who's going to win and who do we WANT to win?

We lost to Texas in the third game of the season 56-61 in the lowest scoring game of our season. This fits Texas' reputation as a defensive oriented team that can take offensive juggernauts out of system and win in close games. Ohio State is on a bit of a roll after advancing to the Big 10 tournament final and knocking LSU out in the 2nd round.

I probably should prefer a game against Ohio State in the regional final but I'd love to see Stanford avenge that early season loss. I think we would have won that game if it was played later in the season after our offense gelled, our PG play solidified, and players better understood their roles. Of course, Texas can say the same, Lauren Ebo didn't score in the earlier game and they've had Freshmen emerge as key players in the intervening months.

What do the WBB experts here think?

I think Texas wins based on how good Rori Harmon, Alliyah Moore and Joanne Allen-Taylor have been playing lately. And then with any luck, we get our revenge after taking down Maryland for the 2nd time this season.

One correction re: Ohio State, they didn't make the Big Ten finals; Indiana beat them in the semis. They did, however, share the regular season conference title with Iowa.

I'm with you in that I think Ohio State is the easier matchup, but I'd rather we play Texas and win regardless.

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - Jskass - 03-24-2022

Just win Friday then discuss.

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - martyup - 03-25-2022

(03-24-2022, 10:42 PM)Jskass Wrote: Just win Friday then discuss.

TGIF!

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - BobK - 03-25-2022

https://justwomenssports.com/hannah-jump-stanford-womens-basketball-ncaa-tournament/

Love these stories

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - mbdude - 03-25-2022

(03-25-2022, 10:44 AM)BobK Wrote: https://justwomenssports.com/hannah-jump-stanford-womens-basketball-ncaa-tournament/

Love these stories

Ditto! thanks for posting

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - PalmTree - 03-25-2022

(03-25-2022, 10:44 AM)BobK Wrote: https://justwomenssports.com/hannah-jump-stanford-womens-basketball-ncaa-tournament/

Love these stories

Interesting sidebars to the story - Rometra - Roger's daughter (yes <that> Roger Craig) - was a highly ranked guard from Mitty who was also on our recruiting radar, but committed to Duke as part of their #1 ranked 2001 class. She transferred to USC in 2002, as a sophomore, thereby just missing playing with Brooke Smith (Marin Catholic) - a frosh at Duke in 2002 - who wound up transferring to Stanford in 2004.

But back to the matters at hand - GO HANNAH - GO CARDINAL!!!

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - TheWildJacko - 03-25-2022

(03-25-2022, 10:44 AM)BobK Wrote: https://justwomenssports.com/hannah-jump-stanford-womens-basketball-ncaa-tournament/

Love these stories

Awesome story, thanks for posting! The Stanford WBB FB account posted some headlines on the Hull sisters; I found the links for two that I don’t remember seeing posted elsewhere:

Jim Allen from the Spokane Spokesman-Review: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/mar/25/stanfords-hull-sisters-central-valley-grads-have-t/
Ann Killion in the Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annkillion/article/Before-Stanford-s-Hull-twins-part-ways-will-17027266.php

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - M T - 03-27-2022

In the Indiana-UConn game, Missy had to decide whether this was a shot clock violation.
In this frame, the ball is still touching the player In the next frame (showing 0:00), it isn't.

She ruled the call on the floor stands -- her call that the shot was off in time.
Actually, after reading the rules, I'm surprised Missy didn't rule this a violation. I believe she should have.

Look closely. (I'll explain later, if no one else explains the picture and the rule.)

--
There was a foul called against Indiana on a UConn drive to the basket. The announcers were perplexed because the block was clean. But the endline camera view (virtually the same view as Missy) shows that the Indiana player had an arm block on the driver early in the drive at the foul line, and then had her hand on the driver's shoulder a step later. The foul was called for contact before the block. The announcers focused only on (non) contact at the time of the block.

It seems that every play can have a foul called.

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - Grad Fan - 03-27-2022

Aside from our squad, Hailey Van Lith is one of my favorite players in the wbb field (wish she could have played for the good gals) and I really liked this short feature on her, so thought I would share it.

https://t.co/TtvaHHg9Ha

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - CompSci87 - 03-27-2022

(03-27-2022, 03:51 AM)M T Wrote: In the Indiana-UConn game, Missy had to decide whether this was a shot clock violation.
In this frame, the ball is still touching the player In the next frame (showing 0:00), it isn't.

She ruled the call on the floor stands -- her call that the shot was off in time.
Actually, after reading the rules, I'm surprised Missy didn't rule this a violation. I believe she should have.

Look closely. (I'll explain later, if no one else explains the picture and the rule.)

In the picture it looks to me like just the edge of the motion blur of the hand is touching the ball. So it was touching at the start of the exposure, but not at the end. On the shot clock, only 00.1 shows. The additional segments that come on when the clock expires to change the 1 to 0 haven't lit up yet, or at least didn't light up early enough in the exposure to show noticeably.

So the way I see it, this frame confirms that the call of a good shot was correct. Or if you don't buy that the motion blur implies contact with the hand was fully lost before the end of the exposure, at least the frame doesn't prove the call was wrong.

Obviously you have a different theory. And I didn't read the rule. I'm interested to hear your explanation.

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - M T - 03-27-2022

This frame exhibits a rolling shutter effect. Basically, the top of the picture shows the scene a fraction of a second (on the order of 0.002) before the bottom of the picture. Some camera sensor grids work by capturing the photons in each sensor pixel at different times, and reading the pixel's data sequentially across the scene on each line (or block of lines), with upper (blocks of) lines being read entirely before lower lines. Also, remember that each pixel is exposed for some amount of time (say, 0.01 seconds). While the exposure of the top pixels starts (ends) before the exposure of the bottom pixels, at any instant in time, many scan lines are simultaneously exposed.

In this frame, the countdown clock shows "00.1" but there is some ghosting around the yellow numbers. Among the possibilities is that it started to show "00.0" before the exposure of the pixels finished. But since the brightness of the ghosting on the "00" is the same as on the ".1", I think that unlikely.

You can see a rectangle inside the boundary of the backboard that is the red-light signal for a shot-clock violation. That rectangle is (energized) red along the bottom and an (unlit) white at the top. The red line goes up the sides of the backboard seemingly unevenly.

By the time the camera sensor pulled the data from the pixels showing the bottom of the backboard, the red-light sensor was energized, meaning the shot-clock light had come on. It also appears that the red line gets denser down the sides of the backboard, suggesting that the exposure of those pixels started before the red light came on. The more time before the red light came on, the more exposure of the white (unenergized) and less of the red (energized).

The apparent difference between the left (higher) and right (lower) upper limits of the red light is due to the fact that the backboard is slanted relative to the frame. When I draw a horizontal line from the top of the red line on the left to the top on the right, they are the same height.

The image of the hand-ball contact is in scan lines whose exposure ended after the red light was energized. If one could determine that her hand was still touching the ball at the end of the exposure, then it should be a shot-clock violation. But I can't. The blur of the hand and the blur of the ball overlap, indicating that the two probably were in contact at the start of the exposure.

The image of the ball certainly looks distorted and stretched in a SE - NW line, suggesting motion in that direction during the exposure. However, there are dark regions at the poles of a NE-SW line. I'm not sure why. Possibly some sharpening to show motion better by the camera?

Since the red-light was on, and you can't tell that the ball has left the hand, I would not have been surprised if Missy had called this a shot-clock violation. I'm ok with her not overruling her call on the court that it was not a violation.

(03-27-2022, 03:51 AM)M T Wrote: In the Indiana-UConn game, Missy had to decide whether this was a shot clock violation.
In this frame, the ball is still touching the player In the next frame (showing 0:00), it isn't.

She ruled the call on the floor stands -- her call that the shot was off in time.
Actually, after reading the rules, I'm surprised Missy didn't rule this a violation. I believe she should have.

Look closely. (I'll explain later, if no one else explains the picture and the rule.)

--
There was a foul called against Indiana on a UConn drive to the basket. The announcers were perplexed because the block was clean. But the endline camera view (virtually the same view as Missy) shows that the Indiana player had an arm block on the driver early in the drive at the foul line, and then had her hand on the driver's shoulder a step later. The foul was called for contact before the block. The announcers focused only on (non) contact at the time of the block.

It seems that every play can have a foul called.

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - 2006alum - 03-27-2022

Very interesting. That said, while I have more knowledge of law/legal rules than physics/rules of light capture, my general view is that if we're evening starting to engage in this level of discussion, the call on the floor needs to stand, whatever it was!

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - TheWildJacko - 03-27-2022

Awesome explanation MT.

RE: WBB NCAA tournament - CompSci87 - 03-27-2022

Thanks, MT!