WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - 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 76 Gonzaga 70 OT (/thread-18519.html)
+- 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 76 Gonzaga 70 OT (/thread-18519.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - 76lsjumb - 11-18-2019
(11-18-2019, 01:56 AM)M T Wrote: 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.)
(11-18-2019, 12:27 AM)76lsjumb Wrote: 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?
Having now had a chance to look at the YouTube stream [hey, it's a slow news day...], you and I are both talking about the same play, but, based upon what I saw from my "live" vantage point in the first row directly behind the scorer [and review just now of the YouTube video], I find I must disagree with your chronology of events.
I concur that the episode started with Belibi's stuffing of the shot [this happens at 3:29 left in Q3], which was correctly ruled a jump ball [with 3 seconds left on the shot clock]. Because the arrow favored GU, they got the ball out of bounds. On the throw in, the ball hits Kiana's foot and is ruled a kicked ball. The refs signal to [correctly] put 20 seconds on the shot clock [much to Kiana's dismay, but that's the rule]. However, at that point [based on my recollection, not from anything apparent on the video], the arrow was initially switched to Stanford but then was switched back to GU on Missy's insistence. We then got a little vocal behind the scorer's table while play resumed and, upon a subsequent stoppage of play --within the next 30-45 seconds, IIRC, and, indeed, the incident mentioned earlier in this thread where Missy "iced" Kiana -- Missy came over and gave the explanation to the scorer that I quoted above. BTW, I used quotes for Missy because I was able to hear the whole conversation and, with some allowance for extraneous noise [but without any need to translate from Ukrainian], that's my best recollection of what it sounded like she was saying. In other words, she definitely was NOT upset that the arrow was still pointing to Gonzaga, she was explaining [as indicated] why it was supposed to be pointing to Gonzaga, where it, indeed, remained until the next jump ball situation.
Maybe at the next game, after apologizing for yelling at her, I'll try to get an explanation from the scorer. If she'll still talk to me... :-)
One simple explanation for yesterday's close call: at the end of regulation, we were 9-17 from the FT line; GU was 19-24. In OT, we were 8-12 from the FT line. Shoot our OT percentage in regulation [or, indeed, not even that well] and we win in regulation by a few.
I believe that, going into yesterday, we were something like 75% from the line [i.e., our OT percentage].
Practice, practice, practice...
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - jonnyss - 11-18-2019
(11-18-2019, 03:55 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Everyone including our PA announcer and our scorekeeper seems to have been confused by the 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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrant_foul#NCAA
Rough summary:
NCAA MBB and NBA NCAA WBB and FIBA Old terminology no longer in use Penalty Flagrant 1 Unsportsmanlike Intentional 2 shots and loss of possession. Flagrant 2 Disqualifying 2 shots, loss of possession, player is ejected. Technical Technical Varies, 1 or 2 shots, with or without loss of possession.
thanks. very interesting! now i'm curious: any links to when women's college basketball eliminated intentional fouls (or combined them with flagrant one into unsportsmanlike)? they seem quite different than flagrant - strategic rather than dangerous.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - CompSci87 - 11-18-2019
Prior to 2011, when the term "intentional foul" was still being used in NCAA rules, the meaning was not substantially different than the present Unsportsmanlike or recent past Flagrant 1. The term "intentional" was a misnomer, as the definition had
little or nothing to do with the player's intent. The concept wasn't meant to apply to the usual cases where one fouls on purpose (that is, "intentionally" in the ordinary meaning of the word), such as at the end of a close game where you hope the other team will miss free throws. It was just meant to penalize overly hard fouls. That's why the terminology was changed.
See https://web.archive.org/web/20160628014843/http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-05-26/prop-approves-rules-changes. I've edited the table in my post slightly based on that reference.
Quote:Fouls language
The panel also approved a change in nomenclature on fouls that are deemed more severe than a “common” foul in both men’s and women’s basketball. The terms “Flagrant 1” and “Flagrant 2” will now be used. A Flagrant 1 foul takes the place of an intentional foul and the Flagrant 2 foul replaces the previous flagrant foul.
An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be when a player swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball. Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word “intentional,” because a player’s intent was never the point to the rule.
An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be when a player swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - M T - 11-18-2019
[I despise this board software. It put blank lines in. I took them out and immediately posted, only to find them thrown in again. I'm leaving it as is rather than yet again doing extra work to work around the software;.]
Ah, Wikipedia... Some trust it, but I try to use authoritative sources.
The terms used in the NCAA 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 WBB rule book (Rule 10) are "technical" (Section 12), "intentional" (Section 13), and "disqualifying" (Section 14) (and "personal" (Section 10)) Section 11 is about double & simultaneous fouls. Section 15 is about fighting.
Quote:A technical foul is a non-contact foul of a behavioral nature committed
by a player or bench personnel, such as misconduct, which is a behavior or
an act that is unbecoming to a fair, ethical and honorable individual. It is
administrative when there is a violation of the rules pertaining to, but not
limited to, the playing court/equipment requirements, rosters, benches, illegal
uniforms/numbers, scorebook, team delays, excessive timeouts and team
followers.
Quote:An intentional foul is a player-contact foul which, in the judgment of
the official, is:
a. Not a legitimate attempt to make a direct play on the ball;
b. Contact designed to negate an opponent's obvious advantageous position;
c. Contact away from the ball against an opponent who is clearly not
involved in the play, designed to stop the game clock or prevent it from
starting;
d. Contacting an opponent making a throw-in. This act shall also serve as a
team warning for reaching through the boundary.
e. Excessive, hard and/or unnecessary contact against an opponent; and
f. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of an elbow that is deemed
excessive or unnecessary.
a-c seem to have "intent". d-f do not seem to have "intent".
Quote:A disqualifying foul is any flagrant misconduct by any player or bench
personnel. (1) When it is a contact foul, the contact is judged to be violent and/
or severe. (2) When it is a noncontact foul, the unacceptable conduct of the
individual is judged to be persistent, extreme, vulgar and/or abusive.
FIBA seems to have Personal, Technical, Unsportsmanlike, Disqualifying, and Fighting.
(11-18-2019, 03:55 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Everyone including our PA announcer and our scorekeeper seems to have been confused by the 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.
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 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.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - jonnyss - 11-18-2019
thanks so much, m t!
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - crackpot - 11-18-2019
So what I learned from today's discussion is that if your team is awarded possession on a jump ball and there are fewer than 20 seconds left, you should aim the ball at your opponent's foot.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - CompSci87 - 11-18-2019
MT: In fact I did look that up last year in the actual 2017-18/2018-19 rulebook, and WBB was using the term "unsportsmanlike." I still have the copy I downloaded then and have just rechecked it. My mistake was not so much trusting Wikipedia as assuming that there hadn't been a further change since last year.
Per your quote, apparently the NCAA has changed terminology again. So "intentional" is back (IMO the most misleading of the three terms that have been used!) and my nice table was a year out of date. And our PA announcer was right to say "intentional", but our PDF box score still is wrong as it says the fouls were "technical."
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - 76lsjumb - 11-19-2019
(11-18-2019, 09:37 PM)crackpot Wrote: So what I learned from today's discussion is that if your team is awarded possession on a jump ball and there are fewer than 20 seconds left, you should aim the ball at your opponent's foot.
Well, according to at least one website discussing college basketball rules, it turns out that is very good strategy:
Initial Setting of the Arrow
Before the game starts, the possession arrow is turned off. Once the ball is tipped, the team that did not win the tip is awarded the possession arrow and receives the ball if an alternating possession situation occurs. If two opposing players gain control of the ball at the same time before the arrow can be set to start the game, those two players do another jump to determine possession. If one team commits a violation during the jump ball, such as hitting the ball out of bounds or committing a foul, the other team is awarded the ball and the offending team receives the possession arrow.
***
When It's Not Switched
If the opposing team commits a foul or violation during a team's alternating possession throw-in, the arrow is not switched after the ball is in-bounded. For example, if the home team receives the ball for an alternating possession throw-in due to a held ball, and the visiting team commits a foul before the ball is in-bounded, the home team would receive the ball out of bounds again for a throw-in, but the arrow would not be switched once the ball is in-bounded because the throw-in is now a result of a violation.
Apparently, I owe Missy an apology.
Boy, is that a painful thing to type! [Although I still think it's a crazy rule...]
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - M T - 11-19-2019
[Edit: You beat me to it, but since I posted this before I saw your post, I'll leave it.]
(11-18-2019, 05:35 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I concur that the episode started with Belibi's stuffing of the shot [this happens at 3:29 left in Q3], which was correctly ruled a jump ball [with 3 seconds left on the shot clock]. Because the arrow favored GU, they got the ball out of bounds. On the throw in, the ball hits Kiana's foot and is ruled a kicked ball. The refs signal to [correctly] put 20 seconds on the shot clock [much to Kiana's dismay, but that's the rule]. However, at that point [based on my recollection, not from anything apparent on the video], the arrow was initially switched to Stanford but then was switched back to GU on Missy's insistence. We then got a little vocal behind the scorer's table while play resumed and, upon a subsequent stoppage of play --within the next 30-45 seconds, IIRC, and, indeed, the incident mentioned earlier in this thread where Missy "iced" Kiana -- Missy came over and gave the explanation to the scorer that I quoted above. BTW, I used quotes for Missy because I was able to hear the whole conversation and, with some allowance for extraneous noise [but without any need to translate from Ukrainian], that's my best recollection of what it sounded like she was saying. In other words, she definitely was NOT upset that the arrow was still pointing to Gonzaga, she was explaining [as indicated] why it was supposed to be pointing to Gonzaga, where it, indeed, remained until the next jump ball situation.
I was wrong.
Obviously you saw the details better than me. The video shows you are correct about the extra changes of the possession arrow. (I'll send you the details I see in the video) and had a somewhat accurate quotation. The scorer properly did not change the possession arrow until the inbound (and the kick) happened. When Missy turned to tell the scorer Williams's number, she must have seen the arrow change. But, Missy ruled (properly) that the arrow should not have been changed on the first inbound (but should have been changed on the 2nd inbound).
Quote:The alternating-possession procedure starts when an official places
the ball at the disposal of a player for a throw-in. The alternating-possession
procedure ends and the arrow is reversed immediately when a passed ball legally
touches an inbounds player, when a player, who is located on the playing court,
touches and causes the ball to be out of bounds, or when the throw-in team
commits a throw-in violation.
Missy apparently ruled that the ball did not touch Williams legally, so the arrow
should not have been changed on that first throw-in, and expected it to be changed
on the 2nd throw-in (which it wasn't). She was (reasonably) upset that the scorer
didn't make the arrow change at the proper time.
(I wouldn't have known this distinction.)
[Btw, notice that if either team commits a foul before the throw-in, this rule doesn't
allow for the arrow to be changed until after the foul shot (perhaps at the other end of the court)! This rule seems
flawed to me. I also don't know the intended difference between
"inbounds player" and "player, who is located on the playing court"]
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - TheFarm07 - 11-19-2019
While voters did not punish us for our close OT win against Gonzaga at home, they did reward the Bulldogs and they became ranked at #23. As the ESPN article pointed out, it's rare for a team to move up after a loss, but apparently either the voters were impressed by Gonzaga or they think very highly of us that a very competitive loss was reason enough to push the Zags into the Top 25
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - 81alum - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 08:37 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: While voters did not punish us for our close OT win against Gonzaga at home, they did reward the Bulldogs and they became ranked at #23. As the ESPN article pointed out, it's rare for a team to move up after a loss, but apparently either the voters were impressed by Gonzaga or they think very highly of us that a very competitive loss was reason enough to push the Zags into the Top 25
The Massey computer rankings generally agree, with Gonzaga at 23, but it still has us at 6, not 3 as per the polls. I believe we were at 6 before this win, too. At this time of year I'm inclined to trust the polls more than the computer rankings since they have so little data to go from, but here they are just the same:
Massey
1) Baylor
2) Mississippii State
3) Oregon
4) UConn
5) Louisville
6) Stanford
7) South Carolina
8) Oregon State
9) Notre Dame
10) UCLA
16) Tennessee
17) Arizona
23) Gonzaga
24) Arizona State
40) Cal
50) Texas
53) Washington State
56) Buffalo
58) Colorado
59) USC
63) Ohio State
78) Utah
99) Washington
151) USF
187) N Colorado
254) E Washington
The biggest difference between the polls and the computer rankings is Mississippii State, which is 10 in the polls but 2 in the computer rankings. We could be headed to a collision with them in Victoria after which we might know a lot more about both teams.
What is also clear is how much better Gonzaga is rated than our other patsy opponents. Gonzaga is rated as better than 7 Pac 12 teams.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - teejers1 - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 09:00 AM)81alum Wrote: What is also clear is how much better Gonzaga is rated than our other patsy opponents. Gonzaga is rated as better than 7 Pac 12 teams.
My eyes tell me that Gonzaga is a very good team. I also want to believe that, because if they are not, then Stanford is not as good as I had hoped (and still think) they are. But make no mistake: the Zags could easily have won that game Sunday night, and frankly, I thought they were going to very late in regulation. And it was not flukey. They are physically strong at all 5 positions, are well-coached, have good quickness at the guard position and sound play in the paint (even if it is the 3 posting up, as opposed to the 4/5).
It would not shock me in the least if they are one of the last 8 or 4 teams standing in the tourney.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - chimera - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 09:43 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-19-2019, 09:00 AM)81alum Wrote: What is also clear is how much better Gonzaga is rated than our other patsy opponents. Gonzaga is rated as better than 7 Pac 12 teams.
My eyes tell me that Gonzaga is a very good team. I also want to believe that, because if they are not, then Stanford is not as good as I had hoped (and still think) they are. But make no mistake: the Zags could easily have won that game Sunday night, and frankly, I thought they were going to very late in regulation. And it was not flukey. They are physically strong at all 5 positions, are well-coached, have good quickness at the guard position and sound play in the paint (even if it is the 3 posting up, as opposed to the 4/5).
It would not shock me in the least if they are one of the last 8 or 4 teams standing in the tourney.
I agree that Gonzaga is a very good team. I do think though, that if we had not been ice cold from deep (and maybe make a few more FTs) we win fairly comfortably. I realize their defense may have something to do with our poor shooting. Still, even though I think Gonzaga is a well coached team that could well make the S16, I'd bet in a couple of months if we played them again (and were healthy at that point) we would have improved way more than they. Perhaps this is Cardinal colored glasses. Gonzaga just looked closer to mid-season form than we did, were more aggressive and more sure of what they wanted to do.
Also, looked at the game replay posted in this thread and I don't think I've ever seen refs waste time like that before. The ambled around, were constantly at the scorer's table, talked amongst themselves continually. Even for Missy, that was a new low in dragging out a game.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - BosCard - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 09:55 AM)chimera Wrote:(11-19-2019, 09:43 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-19-2019, 09:00 AM)81alum Wrote: What is also clear is how much better Gonzaga is rated than our other patsy opponents. Gonzaga is rated as better than 7 Pac 12 teams.
My eyes tell me that Gonzaga is a very good team. I also want to believe that, because if they are not, then Stanford is not as good as I had hoped (and still think) they are. But make no mistake: the Zags could easily have won that game Sunday night, and frankly, I thought they were going to very late in regulation. And it was not flukey. They are physically strong at all 5 positions, are well-coached, have good quickness at the guard position and sound play in the paint (even if it is the 3 posting up, as opposed to the 4/5).
It would not shock me in the least if they are one of the last 8 or 4 teams standing in the tourney.
I agree that Gonzaga is a very good team. I do think though, that if we had not been ice cold from deep (and maybe make a few more FTs) we win fairly comfortably. I realize their defense may have something to do with our poor shooting. Still, even though I think Gonzaga is a well coached team that could well make the S16, I'd bet in a couple of months if we played them again (and were healthy at that point) we would have improved way more than they. Perhaps this is Cardinal colored glasses. Gonzaga just looked closer to mid-season form than we did, were more aggressive and more sure of what they wanted to do.
Also, looked at the game replay posted in this thread and I don't think I've ever seen refs waste time like that before. The ambled around, were constantly at the scorer's table, talked amongst themselves continually. Even for Missy, that was a new low in dragging out a game.
I agree with Chimera. Gonzaga is a very good team but probably more of a Sweet 16 team vs. Final Four. Their strongest asset is their team defense which was very good and we likely played one of the top 5 defensive teams we will see all year. The silver lining for us is that our defense held up. Gonzaga's FG% was 33% compared to our 44%. The game was close because of their superior free throw shooting.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - BostonCard - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 08:37 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: While voters did not punish us for our close OT win against Gonzaga at home, they did reward the Bulldogs and they became ranked at #23. As the ESPN article pointed out, it's rare for a team to move up after a loss, but apparently either the voters were impressed by Gonzaga or they think very highly of us that a very competitive loss was reason enough to push the Zags into the Top 25
This sort of circular reasoning happens in SEC football all the time. Also, Wilner applies this methodology to his rankings.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - BobK - 11-19-2019
https://instagram.com/stories/cameronbrink22/2180799603259962317?igshid=1rv3j6efgu4e8
The dunk
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - crackpot - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 01:44 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-19-2019, 08:37 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: While voters did not punish us for our close OT win against Gonzaga at home, they did reward the Bulldogs and they became ranked at #23. As the ESPN article pointed out, it's rare for a team to move up after a loss, but apparently either the voters were impressed by Gonzaga or they think very highly of us that a very competitive loss was reason enough to push the Zags into the Top 25
This sort of circular reasoning happens in SEC football all the time. Also, Wilner applies this methodology to his rankings.
BC
Pretty sure in 2002 after a loss at Tennessee, Stanford jumped up in the poll, too, due to looking better than expected.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - 81alum - 11-19-2019
(11-18-2019, 03:24 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Someone captured the live stream and put it on YouTube. If you want to rewatch and analyze: https://youtu.be/dh0nVibEQpw
The most amazing shot of the game is Haley Jones at 1:07:34. Williams makes a desperation heave that hits the rim, Haley gets the offensive rebound but is under the basket without a shot, so she dribbles out a step and makes a blind reverse layup over her right shoulder. She missed the free throw that would have made it a three point play, but there ought to have been a panel of judges awarding her extra points for that circus shot.
Haley Jones is young and raw, but her offensive creativity is everywhere to be seen. It is going to be a special four years to watch her.
By the way, there are about 40 seconds missing in this video from the last minute of regulation, including the very last defensive play. Odd.
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - jonnyss - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 03:14 PM)BobK Wrote: https://instagram.com/stories/cameronbrink22/2180799603259962317?igshid=1rv3j6efgu4e8thanks for posting.
The dunk
well, that's impressive. well above the rim. go cameron!
RE: WBB: Stanford 76 Gonzaga 70 OT - TheFarm07 - 11-19-2019
(11-19-2019, 05:57 PM)81alum Wrote: The most amazing shot of the game is Haley Jones at 1:07:34. Williams makes a desperation heave that hits the rim, Haley gets the offensive rebound but is under the basket without a shot, so she dribbles out a step and makes a blind reverse layup over her right shoulder. She missed the free throw that would have made it a three point play, but there ought to have been a panel of judges awarding her extra points for that circus shot.
Haley Jones is young and raw, but her offensive creativity is everywhere to be seen. It is going to be a special four years to watch her.
We did not need her scoring prowess in our three blowout victories, but in the third quarter, when we were struggling offensively with cold shooting and a disjointed offense, I was thinking that Haley needed to show why she was the #1 recruit in the country and create her own offense and she did just that.
Kiana and Lexie might have finished with more points, but it was Haley's baskets, particularly that amazing shot you described, that kept us in the game.