WBB: Stanford 66 Utah 64 - Printable Version

WBB: Stanford 66 Utah 64 - 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 66 Utah 64 (/thread-24713.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - GK3 - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 05:18 AM)M T Wrote:
(01-12-2024, 08:14 PM)81alum Wrote: Wow, what a relief to get at least one win on this incredibly difficult road trip. The bad officiating continues, and these officials were not even among the worst. One can only hope that the bad calls even out over the course of the game, but we benefited from two bad calls and Utah benefited from one bad call in the last couple of minutes, so I see how the Utah fans feel robbed.

I disagree if you are asserting that Iriafen didn't have her hand on the ball when a held ball was called at Q4 04.4. It is in the video from the end line. This held ball actually fits the rule (below). It was called by the ref (Michol Murray) on the bench side of the court who would have a view of it.

Note the shoulder into Iriafen's chest.

You missed another officiating favor to Utah at the end of the game. With 1.9 seconds on the clock, Utah throws the ball in, Iriafen intercepts it over her head (ie, higher than 6'3") and blocks it out of bounds, but only 0.3 goes off the clock. The clock starts when Iriafen touches the ball and ends when the ref blows the whistle, which is supposed to be when the ball touches something out of bounds, usually the ground. Assume 0.3 seconds is right. On earth, the ball will fall 1.5 feet. Who touched it 4.75 feet above the floor??? If it falls 6 feet, it will take 0.6 seconds.
(Too bad Iriafen didn't just knock it 16 feet up as time would expire before it got into someone's hands (1 second up, 1 second down).) [Indeed, there is a rule(!) that indicates that (in the last minute) the minimum the clock can advance when the ball is legally touched inbounds is 0.3 seconds!]

To the quality of the video in my replay, it appears there was a double dribble by Pili with 7.0 seconds on the clock as she spins and switches from dribbling with the left hand to dribbling with the right hand. It appears she has both hands on the ball as she spins. I would defer to a better capture than what Sling presents.

At Q4 4:10, Jump's arm gets fouled on a shot but no call. (The hand on her arm is visible just before the release.)

At Q4 5:07, if that wasn't a held ball, then why wasn't it a double dribble?

At Q4 9:12, Utah #3 grabs and pulls Harriel's right arm back by 8" with 2 hands because she was beat on a screen. Harriel puts up an awkward left handed shot, but Murray doesn't call the obvious foul(?!) Even on a playground, that's a foul.

Earlier in the game, I don't understand why the refs didn't call a charge on Pili at Q2 7:21. She just bowled over Iriafen.

etc. etc.

As for Brink's second foul call (Q1 1:11), I see no rule that makes that illegal. The second closest is approaching from behind (10.2.6), but the closest is (10.2.2) "incidental contact of two players in equally favorable position to perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted though the contact may be severe". Murray called the foul against Utah. Some other ref must have overruled her. It should have been waved off, not reversed.

(Regarding Iriafen's position on the last Utah FG of Q1. The restricted area is ONLY under the "basket" not under the backboard. "Under the basket" is defined as from the front and side of the ring to the front of the backboard." So, basically, under the rim (or straddling it))

It felt to me that most of the major bad calls were made by Tyler Trimble (the male official) that Tara was talking to before the game. That early interaction left me puzzled. It seemed to start friendly, but at the end Tara looked clearly upset. Does anyone read lips?

An obvious error by him was his call of a held ball. Here are some rules:

Quote: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
--
Art. 2. It shall be legal for a defender to accidentally hit the hand of a ball-
handler when reaching to block or slap the ball when there is player control with
that player’s hand in contact with the ball and when that player is:
a. A dribbler;
b. Attempting a try for field goal; or
c. Holding the ball.
--
Art. 11. A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in the
dribbler’s path, nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an
opponent and a boundary, unless the space is sufficient to provide a reasonable
chance for the dribbler to pass through without contact.

----
On the blocked inbounds, the pass was going to Pili on the far side of the bucket in a good position for a two.

By the way, on the final shot, Pili was looking to pass to the near corner, but Jump was on the player there.
Brink's presence must have influenced the shot, if she didn't touch it. The consecutive (before, after) frames I have don't clearly show she touched it (but she's close), but it looks to me like the ball has a bit of a sideways spin which a shooter like Pili wouldn't do. So I believe she got a fingernail on it.

Stanford had a number of plays with players standing around at the end. Exhaustion impacting their thinking? I usually appreciate Lepolo, but she didn't dribble away from the defense when she had a chance.

Some day, when the clock is down to under 4 seconds, I'd like to see a player on the team with the lead just roll the ball toward the far end line. The coach might die of a heart attack, but it would take about 5 seconds for the ball to get out of bounds. The defenders would not expect it and would not likely catch up to it (and even if they did, they'd take at least a second to pick it up and shoot). The clock won't stop until it is out of bounds or an offensive player touches it in the back court. But, if you're down to 2 seconds and have a tall roof, toss it up.

Iriafen had a great offensive game. But the players she was supposed to be guarding got really good looks.

Bosgana should have been credited with a block at Q1 4:49.

I thought our only weak point was at the end when we were trying to run clock then get a shot, We never could seem to get anyone open for any kind of a decent shot. There are going to be games where scoring in that last 10 seconds is going to be mandatory.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - 81alum - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 05:18 AM)M T Wrote:
(01-12-2024, 08:14 PM)81alum Wrote: Wow, what a relief to get at least one win on this incredibly difficult road trip. The bad officiating continues, and these officials were not even among the worst. One can only hope that the bad calls even out over the course of the game, but we benefited from two bad calls and Utah benefited from one bad call in the last couple of minutes, so I see how the Utah fans feel robbed.

I disagree if you are asserting that Iriafen didn't have her hand on the ball when a held ball was called at Q4 04.4. It is in the video from the end line. This held ball actually fits the rule (below). It was called by the ref (Michol Murray) on the bench side of the court who would have a view of it.

Note the shoulder into Iriafen's chest.

You missed another officiating favor to Utah at the end of the game. With 1.9 seconds on the clock, Utah throws the ball in, Iriafen intercepts it over her head (ie, higher than 6'3") and blocks it out of bounds, but only 0.3 goes off the clock. The clock starts when Iriafen touches the ball and ends when the ref blows the whistle, which is supposed to be when the ball touches something out of bounds, usually the ground. Assume 0.3 seconds is right. On earth, the ball will fall 1.5 feet. Who touched it 4.75 feet above the floor??? If it falls 6 feet, it will take 0.6 seconds.
(Too bad Iriafen didn't just knock it 16 feet up as time would expire before it got into someone's hands (1 second up, 1 second down).) [Indeed, there is a rule(!) that indicates that (in the last minute) the minimum the clock can advance when the ball is legally touched inbounds is 0.3 seconds!]

To the quality of the video in my replay, it appears there was a double dribble by Pili with 7.0 seconds on the clock as she spins and switches from dribbling with the left hand to dribbling with the right hand. It appears she has both hands on the ball as she spins. I would defer to a better capture than what Sling presents.

At Q4 4:10, Jump's arm gets fouled on a shot but no call. (The hand on her arm is visible just before the release.)

At Q4 5:07, if that wasn't a held ball, then why wasn't it a double dribble?

At Q4 9:12, Utah #3 grabs and pulls Harriel's right arm back by 8" with 2 hands because she was beat on a screen. Harriel puts up an awkward left handed shot, but Murray doesn't call the obvious foul(?!) Even on a playground, that's a foul.

Earlier in the game, I don't understand why the refs didn't call a charge on Pili at Q2 7:21. She just bowled over Iriafen.

etc. etc.

As for Brink's second foul call (Q1 1:11), I see no rule that makes that illegal. The second closest is approaching from behind (10.2.6), but the closest is (10.2.2) "incidental contact of two players in equally favorable position to perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted though the contact may be severe". Murray called the foul against Utah. Some other ref must have overruled her. It should have been waved off, not reversed.

(Regarding Iriafen's position on the last Utah FG of Q1. The restricted area is ONLY under the "basket" not under the backboard. "Under the basket" is defined as from the front and side of the ring to the front of the backboard." So, basically, under the rim (or straddling it))

It felt to me that most of the major bad calls were made by Tyler Trimble (the male official) that Tara was talking to before the game. That early interaction left me puzzled. It seemed to start friendly, but at the end Tara looked clearly upset. Does anyone read lips?

An obvious error by him was his call of a held ball. Here are some rules:

Quote: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
--
Art. 2. It shall be legal for a defender to accidentally hit the hand of a ball-
handler when reaching to block or slap the ball when there is player control with
that player’s hand in contact with the ball and when that player is:
a. A dribbler;
b. Attempting a try for field goal; or
c. Holding the ball.
--
Art. 11. A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact an opponent in the
dribbler’s path, nor attempt to dribble between two opponents or between an
opponent and a boundary, unless the space is sufficient to provide a reasonable
chance for the dribbler to pass through without contact.

----
On the blocked inbounds, the pass was going to Pili on the far side of the bucket in a good position for a two.

By the way, on the final shot, Pili was looking to pass to the near corner, but Jump was on the player there.
Brink's presence must have influenced the shot, if she didn't touch it. The consecutive (before, after) frames I have don't clearly show she touched it (but she's close), but it looks to me like the ball has a bit of a sideways spin which a shooter like Pili wouldn't do. So I believe she got a fingernail on it.

Stanford had a number of plays with players standing around at the end. Exhaustion impacting their thinking? I usually appreciate Lepolo, but she didn't dribble away from the defense when she had a chance.

Some day, when the clock is down to under 4 seconds, I'd like to see a player on the team with the lead just roll the ball toward the far end line. The coach might die of a heart attack, but it would take about 5 seconds for the ball to get out of bounds. The defenders would not expect it and would not likely catch up to it (and even if they did, they'd take at least a second to pick it up and shoot). The clock won't stop until it is out of bounds or an offensive player touches it in the back court. But, if you're down to 2 seconds and have a tall roof, toss it up.

Iriafen had a great offensive game. But the players she was supposed to be guarding got really good looks.

Bosgana should have been credited with a block at Q1 4:49.

Yes, I thought the time on that final possession was mishandled at the time. And now I know I was not wrong ;)

With regard to all the jump balls, I was under the impression that the two players needed to actually be contesting possession--not that the defender simply got her hand on the ball for a split second. That seems to accord with the rule you cite. My gut tells me the jump ball call that Utah is now complaining about was a fairly obvious make-up for the bad jump ball call that took the ball away from Cam a little earlier.

And on Pili's drive down the land at the end of the game, at the time I felt that Pili had been fouled, but Article 11 that you cite makes it pretty clear that she should have been called with an offensive foul. She was trying to split defenders and and as you point out, stuck her shoulder into Iriafen in order to do it. The question is whether Kiki moved in front of her to be able to attempt the tie-up. If she did, wouldn't Iriafen then be guilty of the blocking foul?

Earlier in the game, they reviewed a Utah shot that had gone up after the shot clock expired and took 2 points off the board. That review happened many minutes later after the play. Why did they not review our shot that went up after the shot clock expiration? Are shots reviewable ONLY if they go in? If so, they can correct points but they cannot correct a possession error that happens because they missed the call?

Another question--assume our shot went in. Could they have reviewed it with just a couple of seconds left in the game? It would have changed the entire character and strategy of the last few minutes. The timing of these reviews after-the-fact seems like it could be a problem.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - crackpot - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 08:43 AM)81alum Wrote: Another question--assume our shot went in. Could they have reviewed it with just a couple of seconds left in the game? It would have changed the entire character and strategy of the last few minutes. The timing of these reviews after-the-fact seems like it could be a problem.

I thought it strange that they only showed us one angle of that shot, and it was blurry. I assume if it went in that they'd totally stop play to look at it, but in this case there was no point. Found it very strange that Utah players were complaining about that one.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - BillBradley - 01-13-2024

Random other thoughts:

1) Not a great game by Demetre. She seems to play better against slower, bigger teams. Last night, she was more struggling to keep up. 4 fouls, 2 bad turnovers. Would have liked to have seen more Bosgana or Harriel. Props to both of them. Bosgana with a great floor game.
2) Major kudos to Talana for taking care of the ball. Only a couple mistakes against a ball hawking defense, playing all 40 minutes at that altitude.
3) Shot of the game? ~3 mins left, lead has dwindled to 1, Hannah misses a 3. Kiki chases down the rebound, swings it to Cam. Hasn't shot it well, frustrated with the refs, tired, no hesitation, takes and makes the 3, and it swished. Thing of beauty. Having been a topic of discussion, thought it was worth bringing up again. Was Tara good with that shot? If it hadn't gone in, would she have been pissed? Or are we at the point where Cam has the green light to shoot the 3 when she's open (and at crunch time).
4) Speaking of shooting, how big was Harriel? Loved to see that.
5) Not a single flop warning in 2 games. What's the point of having the rule if they aren't going to enforce it? Just one flop warning on Johnson would have changed the game.
6) Really looking forward to the Colorado game. I've posted similar in the past...hoping the refs let them play instead of calling 50 fouls. Our nightmare is to play without both Cam and Kiki because of foul trouble. Tara does have a zone up her sleeve - wouldn't mind her using it in this game to protect against the foul count. I would highly prefer our team play in a physical matchup (if the refs let them play) than to endure all this flopping, body flailing, run-alongside-Cam-and-fall-down b.s. we saw in the Utah and Washington games. Watching these $hitty P12 refs call offensive fouls is just too painful for me!
7) RE: Colorado - I have respect for Sherrod, Formann, Vonleh, Wetta, etc. as basketball players. This year's team is better and more skilled than past bully-ball Colorado teams with players like Hollingshed. They will still play tough and agressive, but I don't think it will be a mugfest.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - M T - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 08:43 AM)81alum Wrote: Earlier in the game, they reviewed a Utah shot that had gone up after the shot clock expired and took 2 points off the board. That review happened many minutes later after the play. Why did they not review our shot that went up after the shot clock expiration? Are shots reviewable ONLY if they go in? If so, they can correct points but they cannot correct a possession error that happens because they missed the call?

Another question--assume our shot went in. Could they have reviewed it with just a couple of seconds left in the game? It would have changed the entire character and strategy of the last few minutes. The timing of these reviews after-the-fact seems like it could be a problem.

First of all, IANAO.

The review can only happen if a shot is made, by rule. A missed shot clock violation on an unsuccessful attempt is not a correctable error. On the Utah successful shot, at least two of the refs made the circling finger in the air which means it will be reviewed at the next media time out or quarter(not at the next dead ball as I thought), so it was quite a while. (This wasn't a question of whether or not a shot hit the rim and a possible timing mistakes, which is one of Missy's favorite stoppages, for which the refs do stop play. Timing mistakes (failure by the timer (or clock) to start, stop, or reset the clock) have to be corrected during the first dead ball. Corrections for timing mistakes can be weird (cancel a foul, etc.))

To the other question... After the last media time out (Q4 5:00 or thereafter), any correctable error must be corrected before the 2nd live ball. So, suppose we made the goal, that makes the ball dead. The throw-in happens, which is the 1st live ball. The correction has to be made before the next (2nd) live ball. So, there is time to bring it to the officials' attention, even if Utah calls a time-out, score, lose the ball out of bounds, whatever.

By the way, I wasn't looking for it, but I think I saw at least one error by the timer where the clock was reset to 20 when the ball hit the rim, but was not reset to 20 when the offense got control of the ball.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - CompSci87 - 01-13-2024

[I wrote this before seeing MT's latest post just above, so it ends up being mostly redundant, but I'll leave it here.]

Great long post by MT with lots of good points. I had been thinking some of the same things, but lots I didn't notice. And I didn't check the rule book.

Quote:Earlier in the game, they reviewed a Utah shot that had gone up after the shot clock expired and took 2 points off the board. That review happened many minutes later after the play. Why did they not review our shot that went up after the shot clock expiration? Are shots reviewable ONLY if they go in? If so, they can correct points but they cannot correct a possession error that happens because they missed the call

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's correct. I think the reasoning behind the rule is that when the shot hits the rim and doesn't go in, play continues, and it's not possible to go back and correct the error anymore without negating the continued play. But when the shot does go in, the very next thing that happens is that the opposing team inbounds the ball, which is the same thing that would have happened if the shot clock violation had been called.

This is similar to the reasoning on why it's fair to allow reviewing whether a shot was a 3 or 2 pointer at the next stoppage.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - Spiny_Norman - 01-13-2024

I am thrilled with a win in a hostile environment over a tough opponent at altitude. And thrilled that Stanford should never have to do that again. Last trip ever to SLC? We are done with Utah unless Stanford plays them in the P12 tournament.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - CompSci87 - 01-13-2024

There's a tweet claiming that Iriafen knocking the inbound out of bounds was illegal:

https://twitter.com/banthecharge/status/1746021689836683399?t=YLCwKpPsSQ2YuKE5mbXBmQ&s=19

I'm not sure what rule is supposedly violated. There is this rule:

Quote:Reaching through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touching or dislodging the ball while it is in possession of the thrower-in or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line as in Rule 7-4.6.b. This act shall also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary. (See Rule 4-9.1.g.)

...and this rule...

Quote:The opponents of thrower-in having any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line.

...but it appears Iriafen didn't touch the ball until after the inbounder released it. And I don't think her hand was across the boundary line before touching the ball either, though that's hard to be certain of from this video angle. The tweeter seems certain it was.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - M T - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 04:43 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: There's a tweet claiming that Iriafen knocking the inbound out of bounds was illegal:

https://twitter.com/banthecharge/status/1746021689836683399?t=YLCwKpPsSQ2YuKE5mbXBmQ&s=19

I'm not sure what rule is supposedly violated. There is this rule:

Quote:Reaching through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touching or dislodging the ball while it is in possession of the thrower-in or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line as in Rule 7-4.6.b. This act shall also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary. (See Rule 4-9.1.g.)

...and this rule...

Quote:The opponents of thrower-in having any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line.

...but it appears Iriafen didn't touch the ball until after the inbounder released it. And I don't think her hand was across the boundary line before touching the ball either, though that's hard to be certain of from this video angle. The tweeter seems certain it was.

In his dreams. The camera angle on the broadcast is not very useful for checking this, but I'll point out that the two rules only prohibit the defender from crossing the boundary line to touch the ball. It is quite common for the inbounder's hands to cross the boundary line but we can't tell if her toes are just outside the line or a foot back. In the video you can see the ref giving the usual signal indicating to the defender to stay back (which I don't believe is required by the rules, but I haven't checked). With the ref standing between them, you get a good perspective of just how far back Iriafen is - looks like 4 feet. Both players move slightly to the video left, approximately equally. The video shows Iriafen's jumping jacks are in-place (it looks like she backs up a couple of inches).

You'll see the ball has completely left the inbounder's hand before being touched by Iriafen. That means that it was more inbounds that the thrower's hands by at least 70% (accounting for angle of flight relative to the sideline) the width of the ball. (I didn't see any end line views of this side of the court to judge how far back the Utah player could have been.)

I actually think doing jumping jacks is not the best defense here. The inbounder can judge how high you reach and time your descent and you have no prayer of getting back up quickly. I'd think a quick jumper has a better chance of getting her hand on the ball. Here, the inbounder mistimed her throw. Iriafen was still in the air. (Yes, jumping jacks may impede the vision of the inbounder.)

Hey, NCAA, "Reaching through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touching or dislodging the ball while it is in possession of the thrower-in or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line" is ambiguous. Is it that an act of both reaching through the plane and simultaneously touching the ball is illegal, or is it that either is illegal? If a player is standing outside the boundary with the ball and she pushes it into a player inside the court (which means the defender touches the ball) an illegal contact by the defender?

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - old spanish trail - 01-14-2024

I think we got a little lucky with Pili. She came into the game hitting 50% of her 3's. In this game, she was 2-8. On at least 3 of her misses she was totally unguarded, but still unsuccessful.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Utah, Friday 5pm - 81alum - 01-14-2024

Audio of the press conference. I have not found video yet.

https://soundcloud.com/gostanford/sets/postgame-press-conference-at-utah-11224

Highlights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjGEuD_yhMA

Video of the Utah press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCAb-8w3-oM

Iriafen interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-hZ2c-LhI4&t=2s