WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60

WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - 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 63 Oregon State 60 (/thread-18992.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - chimera - 02-22-2020

I did not like the end of game inbounding and passing into the backcourt at all and whined loudly about it at the time. If a team is pressuring all over because they have to, keep the ball as far from their basket as possible and don't dribble around in the backcourt, and most especially don't dribble around there with a player who is not Williams. Lucky it did not cost us the game or at least having to go to OT.

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - freddot5 - 02-22-2020

(02-22-2020, 09:44 AM)BobK Wrote: Post game we were talking about that terrible throw it into the back court pass with under a minute. Almost cost us the game. That and foul them with a minute and less. We had 4 to give the last we would be up three they shooting two
But a win is a win and I love that

At the half I told 81 and others Beavers were the direst team even. The constant moving screens by Jones the arm throw to the defender by Slocum. But in the second half much cleaner.

Makes me wonder if a Pac 12 evaluator in the house and goes into the refs room at the half and discusses the rules with the three blind mice. Maybe

Williams was awesome. I’ll argue with my seat mate never too much Williams.
That said would be nice to have Brown back she had been playing well.

Oregon next and a rumor heard last night 6.000 tix already sold. A rumor but??

Boley 8 of 9 threes in the win over cal

There were quite a few Oregon fans at Cal last night probably due to the fact that Ionescu and Moore are from the East Bay. Will they show up here on Monday?

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 02-22-2020

The good news is we won. But Williams played 40 minutes. Not Ideal heading into the Oregon game for our only consistent offense to be playing on tired legs. And maybe no Brown to relieve her. Thank goodness Tara is coach!

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - 2006alum - 02-22-2020

Following up, agreed with the criticism of our inbounding in the last 30 seconds. We wasted a timeout because of a poorly inbounded pass the first time, and then the second time we sent it into the backcourt and, surprise surprise, OSU was ready to close in and trap Lexie, who basically passed the ball straight into Kat Tudor's hands. I did not understand why Williams was DOING the inbounding, especially after the first time out - didn't someone remark earlier that Moschkau is a great inbounder (and she probably has at least 8 inches on Williams in height and arm length to enhance her range on the inbounds pass)? It looked like she was going to be subbed in initially on that play towards the end when we knocked it out of bounds, as she went to the scorer's table and is listed in the box score with 0 minutes, but then the refs confirmed the foul call stood and so she didn't end up entering. But why not bring her back once we'd used the timeout on the first inbounds? Totally agree that Williams should have been the one with the ball in her hands for the final score!

Re: Prechtel, my sense was also that she was struggling a little bit to switch on defense between the post and the perimeter. As 81 and others have noted, Dodson was much more effective on the switch from Jones to Slocum on the pick and roll plays, and I was surprised by how effectively she guarded Slocum outside. She's pretty agile and has long limbs, whereas Prechtel is sturdier and has a shooter's touch. I would imagine given that we were already struggling to guard Slocum, Tara thought the extra edge Dodson added on defense was worth it. But I did feel like our fourth quarter drop-off on offensive production was exemplary of where Prechtel might be useful - there were at least three times in the last 4 minutes when Dodson was open at the key. The first time, she shot, and it was WELL off. After that, OSU sagged on her, and even when she was open she looked to pass or dribble inside rather than shoot. I'm almost certain at on 1 or 2 of those 3 possession Prechtel would have scored had she been in the same position, because all three were clean looks.

More generally, our post rotation is now 5 deep (Fingall, Dodson, Jerome, Prechtel, and Belibi), so mathematically there's only so much time for each of them, especially against a lineup that was running 4-guard rotations for most of the game.

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - treetop11 - 02-22-2020

(02-22-2020, 08:28 AM)81alum Wrote: A few observations upon sleep and reflection:

1. I have no idea what the technical was, but when play started up again I saw Rueck cross over the line and the court border. I even tried to yell "Do it again Rueck!" but only a pathetic frog voice came out. I think Rueck calls more plays from the bench than any other coach we have seen, and he is often directly communicating with his team during the action. He has a tendency to wander a bit too far. On the other hand, I too have seen him deliberately get technicals.

2. Treetop, I don't see the statistical disparity that you do in the boxscore. They did have 6 more defensive rebounds, but that is because we took 64 shots to their 55--a pretty big edge to us. Both sides had exactly 18 O-boards. You are right that we left four points on the table by shooting 8/12 free throws, and OSU shot 12/12. That hurt, but our percentage was not far off our average and I think OSU simply had an unusually perfect night shooting free throws. Certainly edge to OSU there. OSU also did have an edge in assists and in blocks, but we had the edge in steals and a big one in turnovers. Both sides were tied in fouls. Both sides shot within about a percent of each other. When I look over the statline I kind of see a wash or a slight edge for us.

3. I think more of a problem was that we deserved a lot more free throws than OSU got. The refs were letting a lot of moving screens go on defense until they reversed themselves late in the 3rd, and as Chimera has pointed out they were allowing OSU drivers to manufacture fouls for themselves by angling into our moving defenders. As far as the moving screens are concerned, I wish our own screeners had adjusted and carried their own screens "off the line of scrimmage" to see if we could have benefited from the non calls too. As for the manufactured fouls--while I don't like them, this has become a part of basketball. Kelsey Plum scored a third of her points on free throws she created by using this technique. I imagine there are drills in practice on how to do this, driving and shooting while running into a cushion or somesuch. This is something that Carrington did very well. We need to become better at generating those for our own players as one of the now accepted skills in basketball.

4. Did anyone else notice how much use we made of the two person screen at the top of the arc to spring Williams? It did not look terribly effective to me but Williams did have a very good night. We've seen this double screen before, but I don't think I've ever seen it used so much in a single game. How effective was it? On the one hand, Williams did very well. But on the other, I never remember seeing any OSU players getting hung up on it. Was the constant use of this double screen really part of William's success? (This screen did NOT move, by the way, or maybe it could have been more effective?)

5. Dodson remains a mystery to me. When she started the game she seemed to take OSU by surprise, and made two layups in the first minute of the game. She went 1/6 with only a single rebound the rest of the way. It looked to me as if she could not make shots from the blocks off of glass, but could only make shots from in front of the basket and without using glass. Am I being too critical? It sure seemed that OSU rapidly figured out the scouting report on her and neutralized her offensively. I should add, however, that I thought her defense was superb throughout the game--it was especially fun to see her guarding little Slocum. Dodson seems much more fluid and less awkward around the basket than earlier in her career, but I still wonder about her versatility with scoring, but am not confident I understand her strengths and weaknesses properly.

6. What happened to Prechtel? She seemed to disappear as the game went along. Jones did shoot over her a couple of times--my theory is that Tara pulled her because she was not doing something on defense that she wanted to see. What was that? I don't see how anyone was going to defend Jones one on one that far down in the paint. So what was it that Jerome and even Belibi were able to do on defense that Prechtel could not? Because Prechtel sure seems better offensively to me around the basket than anyone else we have got just now. On the other hand, Prechtel was just 1/5 herself last night in her 10 minutes, so maybe it wasn't her defense?

They shot higher % FG, 3 pt., and FT - I was surprised to see that in box score after game except for FT. I wasn't implying a significant disparity, just that by stats alone they were better (equal or ahead in most categories). TO difference is only reason I can see to explain why we won. Your #3 point is quite interesting and at least may partially explain what I want to raise in a separate post about fouls and FTs.

Dodson - I could swear that one of her baskets last night was banked off the glass, but I might be misremembering. In any event, in her other two games, she definitely had banks off the glass including where she drove and put it up from the side to avoid a block. So she looks to have that skill this year. I think that Jones' height and length bothered her shot and she hasn't played enough to develop adjustments. Overall, I think she looks much more confident and better at scoring than I recall in her past two years. Previously, she looked more like Belibi looks this year - mostly making easy shots, occasional misses on the bunnies, throwing up wild shots that have no chance, and once in a while making a crazy shot - but in general, not looking smooth and in control like you see with a top post player like Hebard. This year, she still is no Hebard but much closer than in the past with her footwork and touch. For any optimism that I carry about this year's team finishing strong in March, it would be because of Dodson. She not only provides substantial depth now in the post, but she brings things that Fingall, Prechtel, Belibi, and Jerome don't - actually very nice because the posts give Tara different options/tools and they also can compliment each other. For example, Dodson can stay don on O while a Fingall or Prechtel moves to perimeter taking a defender with them and posing multiple threats of either scoiring down low in the post or making a 3 pointer.

(02-22-2020, 09:44 AM)BobK Wrote: Post game we were talking about that terrible throw it into the back court pass with under a minute. Almost cost us the game. That and foul them with a minute and less. We had 4 to give the last we would be up three they shooting two
But a win is a win and I love that

At the half I told 81 and others Beavers were the direst team even. The constant moving screens by Jones the arm throw to the defender by Slocum. But in the second half much cleaner.

Makes me wonder if a Pac 12 evaluator in the house and goes into the refs room at the half and discusses the rules with the three blind mice. Maybe

Williams was awesome. I’ll argue with my seat mate never too much Williams.
That said would be nice to have Brown back she had been playing well.

Oregon next and a rumor heard last night 6.000 tix already sold. A rumor but??

Boley 8 of 9 threes in the win over cal

Bob
I have a question. When Jones put her elbow into Dodson, the officials reviewed for a flagrant and decided it was routine play and common foul on another beaver elsewhere. When I watched the replay, besides hitting Dodson in the eye, it clearly looked like Jones' arm and elbow did a "hook and hold" which is now supposed to be a flagrant. It was much more obvious and egregious in its effect that the flagrant that was called on Kisunas the night before. Did you see that or am I imagining? And if my eyesight was correct, do they emphasize that only in the men's game and let it go in the women's?

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - qwerty49 - 02-22-2020

(02-22-2020, 01:09 PM)treetop11 Wrote: When Jones put her elbow into Dodson, the officials reviewed for a flagrant and decided it was routine play and common foul on another beaver elsewhere.

Just a quibble -- that wasn't Jones on the foul but it was OSU's 6-7 second-string (or maybe 3rd string?) post, according to the announcers. It just looked to me like the kind of raw, clumsy play you would expect from someone who has great size but doesn't have the skills to beat out a talented freshman for the start and the minutes.

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - BobK - 02-22-2020

Yes it was Morris not Jones.

It seems in the women’s game the elbow now must be intentional

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - treetop11 - 02-22-2020

(02-22-2020, 04:24 PM)BobK Wrote: Yes it was Morris not Jones.

It seems in the women’s game the elbow now must be intentional

Yes, you guys are correct on not Jones. But question is; was there a hook involved in that sequence and is that emphasized as in the men's game?

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - M T - 02-23-2020

(02-22-2020, 04:52 PM)treetop11 Wrote:
(02-22-2020, 04:24 PM)BobK Wrote: Yes it was Morris not Jones.

It seems in the women’s game the elbow now must be intentional

Yes, you guys are correct on not Jones. But question is; was there a hook involved in that sequence and is that emphasized as in the men's game?

I'm not sure I know what Bob meant. "Any elbow (to the head?) should be automatically called an Intentional Foul." or "An elbow must be thrown intentionally for it to be a foul". Either way, that's not the rule. "Excessive" is the key word, not "Intent"

(Re a hook: See the Officiating Guidelines, Appendix III, Section 3, 1. Post Play, c. Illegal contact)

Q3 0:03 This was the called foul against OSU on a rebound and, separately, an OSU elbow to the head of Dodson that wasn't called, but was reviewed. First, ignore the announcer who called it one way before looking at it. She claims they were both "just going for the ball", but of course the ball was nowhere near. To me, the defining video was the overhead view. The OSU player's elbow started well in front of the line of her shoulders and was swung in a continuous move to behind the line of her shoulders when she hits Dodson's head.

Quote:Rule 10, Section 6, Art. 6. It shall be illegal to extend an elbow(s) and make contact with an opponent when: ...
c� Arms are held approximately horizontal to the playing court when not holding the ball
Note: These illegal positions are most commonly used when rebounding or screening, or in the various aspects of post play.
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, Section 10, Art. 16. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a� Results from total body movement is a personal or intentional foul�
b� Is excessive per Rule 10-6�7 is a disqualifying foul�
c� Occurs above or below the shoulders of an opponent is a personal,
intentional, or disqualifying foul�
Section 13, Art. 1. An intentional foul is a player-contact foul which, in the judgment of the official, is:
f� Illegal contact caused by the swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary�

Rule 10-6.6 indicates the contact by the elbow to be illegal. (The fact that the refs didn't call it, presumably because they didn't see it, doesn't make it legal.) 10-10.16c makes it a personal, intentional, or disqualifying foul.
The fact that the elbows go from well in front of the shoulders to behind the shoulders satisfies the conditions of rule 10-6.7 (at least I believe they wanted to distinguish elbow swinging faster than the body, rather than require the condition that the body is also rotating!) Technically, this appears to make this a disqualifying foul, which I think is too strong. I think rule 10-6.7 should be cleaned up.
Was this swinging "necessary" in some sense? I can't imagine the refs ruling that. As it was unnecessary, Rule 10-13.1f should have applied based on the unnecessary clause, avoiding having to make a judgement of "excessive".
(As in years past, this call has been, IMO, erratically made. I will presume the intent of the rule is to prevent head injury. Elbows hitting heads hard happens in clear-out moves (horizontal swinging), shot blocking (downward swinging), shot making (with the off arm, horizontally or downward), rebounding, (here) trying to establish a dominant position, and even going around a screen. In one case this year, the "intentional" classification wasn't made seemingly because it was a downward motion of the elbow that hit the opponent's head. One could blame that the officials can vary widely as to whether "excessive" only applies if the injured player falls to the ground or not or manages to stay upright. Bloody nose doesn't seem to count as excessive.)

Clearly it was a foul. Clearly the officials failed to call it. "Excessive" is a judgement call. Had they called it as excessive, I believe the rule would have required disqualification. Perhaps that's why they did NOT rule it as excessive.

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - BobK - 02-23-2020

Except not the Rule MT

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - mbdude - 02-23-2020

my brother, an OSU fan, said it couldn't be an intentional foul because Morris never does anything intentionally. (some harsh fans in Oregon)

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - 2006alum - 02-23-2020

(02-23-2020, 03:36 PM)mbdude Wrote: my brother, an OSU fan, said it couldn't be an intentional foul because Morris never does anything intentionally. (some harsh fans in Oregon)

TITCR. Harsh but hilarious, and unfortunately true.

RE: WBB: Stanford 63 Oregon State 60 - M T - 02-24-2020

If I understood correctly on Monday, one Cardboarder suggested that the elbow to Dodson occurred after the called foul was committed against Lexie Hull. That gave me pause, because then the elbow would have had to be called as a dead ball contact technical foul (which I hadn't considered).

However, the ball is still some 12' in the air when the elbow has already hit Dodson's head. The foul was called (as best I can tell) for a shove just as the ball gets down to Lexie. The whistle was blown after that contact. In the overhead view, you can see the official on the opposite side of the court from the benches raises his hand and gestures toward where Lexie was. Dodson was already on the way to the ground as he is still lowering his hand (from signaling that it was a 3pt attempt).

IMO, the ref under the basket should have been watching the post players, not where the rebound came down. He's the one I think that blew the call initially. As I've said, this is, by definition, swinging the elbow and should have been called as such upon review. That would be the responsibility of the head ref.