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

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

(02-17-2024, 08:37 AM)81alum Wrote:
(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.

Regarding a punched ball, it is not a foul, but should be handled like a kicked ball (award ball to the opposing team, reset shot clock). Note that the rule applies to both the defense and offense.

As for the 2nd half of your post, that's what the 2nd half of my post was about. At Q3 8:00 (well covered on TV, but I forgot people in Maples, and esp. near the Stanford bench might have missed it), Brink reached her long arms around Suárez and put her right hand on the ball after she received a pass. Then Suárez extended her right elbow/arm back into Brink's abdomen/chest area. The ref called a foul on Brink. A coach can ask for a replay review for an Intentional or Disqualifying foul, but loses a timeout if none is called. See my previous post for more.

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - BobK - 02-17-2024

After the Call of foul on Brink the cal player hit Brink with her elbow. Why that wasn’t called a mystery to me and Tara

Missed you all at halftime. See you this coming weekend

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - ca245 - 02-17-2024

(02-17-2024, 09:12 AM)M T Wrote:
(02-17-2024, 08:37 AM)81alum Wrote:
(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.
Regarding a punched ball, it is not a foul, but should be handled like a kicked ball (award ball to the opposing team, reset shot clock). Note that the rule applies to both the defense and offense.

As for the 2nd half of your post, that's what the 2nd half of my post was about. At Q3 8:00 (well covered on TV, but I forgot people in Maples, and esp. near the Stanford bench might have missed it), Brink reached her long arms around Suárez and put her right hand on the ball after she received a pass. Then Suárez extended her right elbow/arm back into Brink's abdomen/chest area. The ref called a foul on Brink. A coach can ask for a replay review for an Intentional or Disqualifying foul, but loses a timeout if none is called. See my previous post for more.

The quoted rule applies to goal-tending. Is there a rule about punching it from the opponent's grasp?

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

(02-17-2024, 09:51 AM)ca245 Wrote: The quoted rule applies to goal-tending. Is there a rule about punching it from the opponent's grasp?

Rule 9-6 has nothing to do with goal-tending (which is Rule 9-15).
Rule 9-6 covers 3 things. (1) intentionally kicking the ball (2nd half of the rule defines that kicking is with the foot or leg), (2) striking the ball with a fist, (3) sending the ball upwards through the hoop. This is the rule you are asking about.

It doesn't matter whether the ball is free or in the grasp of a player, hitting the ball with the fist is a violation, whether you are on offense or defense. As I read it, it doesn't matter whether you strike the ball with the back of your knuckles (punch), the heel of your hand (hammer), the thumb side, or the front of your knuckles (as in a underhand VB serve).

The kicking part is often called many times during a game (and not infrequently, miscalled because the ball simply hits the foot or leg; intent to strike is required). I think I've seen the ball (unintentionally) go up through the hoop maybe once. I don't recall that I've ever seen a player hit the ball with the fist. It seems somewhat unnatural, an easy call for the ref, and can easily result in a foul, perhaps intentional, disqualifying, or fighting.

It is unclear to me whether the adverb "intentionally" applies to all three verbs. I would probably say it does.

Edit: Was the "punching" the action at Q4 6:28 when Brink had rebounded a Suárez air ball? If so, I don't see a closed fist.

BobK, contrary to what the announcers supposed after the ruling, the elbow/arm swing into Brink was maybe 0.5 seconds before the foul was called, but perhaps after the official felt the foul had been committed. While I still don't see a foul by Brink, the official could have called a double foul.

Quote:Rule 10. Sect. 11. Art. 1. A double foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal
fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

IMO, it should have been called a held ball before the elbow/arm was swung

Quote:Rule 4. Sect. 6 Art. 2. A held ball occurs when an opponent places their hand(s):
a. So firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue
roughness; or..

The ref that made the call was Ashley Ellis. Her only previous call of a Stanford game appears to be the December 2023 Gonzaga game.

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - BobK - 02-17-2024

Showed on tv several times MY. I ll stand what I saw :)

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - CompSci87 - 02-17-2024

I've seen that punching the ball rule, but forgot it because I've never seen it called. Of course we frequently see players deflect passes or dribbles, or even poke the ball out a player's hands, and of course it's not called a violation. So I guess the criterion for punched ball is a closed fist.

The kicked ball rule of course is frequently called when a pass or dribble or loose ball is kicked. I was joking when I brought it up because of how funny (not to mention dangerous) it would look for a defender to try to kick the ball out of an opponents's hands.

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - liveoak - 02-19-2024

Thanks to 81Alum for his excellent summary...here a couple of thoughts of my own.

I remember thinking late in the third quarter that this was one of the most boring games I'd seen this season. Stanford was winning handily and looked very good, the opponents looked terrible and couldn't do anything - and if there were a mercy rule, this was the time to invoke it.

I thought that Cal was just really bad and/or their players didn't match up well with Stanford. Afte thinking about it some more, I came to the conclusion that the first two reasons could well be true - but the main factor was that Stanford was just really good. The defense was excellent and the offense was operating smoothly. Krimili and Macintosh are their two main offensive players, but Bosgana/Ogden and Lepolo shut them down.

At this time of the year, I look at Stanford to see how the team has grown as they head towards the NCAA Tournament. Scott Rueck made this point in his press conference after the OSU/UCLA game - he said that his team is growing and adding new things every day. Here are a few things that I see Stanford adding in the last few games:

Ogden is playing excellent defense and is a threat to drive to the basket (which we need). She looks fully integrated into the lineup.
Bosgana had a fine defensive game against Cal and drove to the basket well - even with her right hand!
Harriel is playing well as the second point guard and looks like she will sub in for Lepolo when Stanford wants to have all strong 3-point shooters on the court.
Lepolo is playing excellent defense and took a couple of drives to the basket - I'd love to see more of that from her.
Jump scored several times from drives to the basket, besides shooting well and playing excellent defense.
Any and all drives to the basket by guards/wings will only help loosen up defenses at the end of the season.

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - 81alum - 02-19-2024

(02-19-2024, 05:34 PM)liveoak Wrote:
Any and all drives to the basket by guards/wings will only help loosen up defenses at the end of the season.

Terrific point. This was lacking at the start of the season, and analysts and announcers often remarked on it. No longer. I personally want to see Agara driving more too. She does drive baseline, but I think she can drive from the elbow too, and she finishes so very well with contact.

RE: WBB: Stanford 84 Cal 49 - liveoak - 02-19-2024

(02-19-2024, 06:33 PM)81alum Wrote:
(02-19-2024, 05:34 PM)liveoak Wrote:
Any and all drives to the basket by guards/wings will only help loosen up defenses at the end of the season.

Terrific point. This was lacking at the start of the season, and analysts and announcers often remarked on it. No longer. I personally want to see Agara driving more too. She does drive baseline, but I think she can drive from the elbow too, and she finishes so very well with contact.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-19-2024

Excellent comments and observations by all. I’m a bit of a basketball junkie… still recovering from my stint as a 4th,5th and 6th grade YMCA coach many year ago. I appreciate and value the knowledge level of the comments on this game.

Then again, we are all pretty good when you get ahead by 40 in the third quarter. Thanks to all