WBB: Pac 12 Champions! Stanford 73 -- UT 48 - 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: Pac 12 Champions! Stanford 73 -- UT 48 (/thread-23014.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: Pac 12 Champions! Stanford 73 -- UT 48 (/thread-23014.html)
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - WBB fan - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 09:44 AM)jonnyss Wrote:(03-04-2022, 10:24 PM)martyup Wrote: I don't think Cam violated rule 10-15.2, which defines fighting as striking with a "fist, hand, arm, foot, knee, or leg." However, she surely could have been called for T foul for throwing the ball in retaliation. OTOH, Hollingshed clearly violated the rule.
yes, i was hopeful about that language until i noticed the "but not limited to" before "fist, hand...to combatively strike..."
the rules leave room for missy et. al. to determine what was fighting as hollingshed didn't "strike" and cam struck with a "but-not-limited-to."
i am surprised that the rules don't appear to mention specifically how to penalize throwing the ball at an opponent as you'd think it's pretty common.
edit: thanks for posting the interview. around 9'30" cam and tara are asked if they were worried about ejection. cam offers a clipped, "no," and tara says, "i've never had anyone ejected, so i wasn't thinking it would happen." earlier tara says "no one likes a hand in their face" and i don't like non-basketball action.
Re Tara's saying "I've never had anyone ejected" -- wasn't there a game at Maples when Jayne Appel was ejected? Or did she just come very close? I remember her being dumbstruck, along the lines of if I threw an elbow, it wasn't intentional, but it was still called flagrant.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - ca245 - 03-05-2022
Yes I remember there was a game where Jayne was DQ’d.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - BobK - 03-05-2022
Yes on Jayne. It was a new rule and the player guarding Jayne when Jayne had the ball was like 5-8 Jayne rotated lol her elbows and hit the player whose face was elbow high.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - CompSci87 - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 03:57 AM)M T Wrote: Did you notice the other female ref called a 5-second call in less than 3 seconds (per the clock on the screen)? I think she realized it, as about 10 seconds later she called a travel I couldn't see on the other team. (I believe this is the same ref I commented on her fast 5-second call in another game).
Later in the game, I noticed a CU player pull down an offensive rebound and stay in the lane for about 8 seconds (after she passed the ball off, and without any shots).
I noticed a very fast 3-second call on Haley when she got bottled up near the low block. At least the announcers said 3 seconds, and on replay I could see she did have one foot in the lane. That one was followed quickly by a travel call at the other end. Is that the sequence you mean?
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - CompSci87 - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 11:04 AM)BobK Wrote: Yes on Jayne. It was a new rule and the player guarding Jayne when Jayne had the ball was like 5-8 Jayne rotated lol her elbows and hit the player whose face was elbow high.
Yes. Jayne had gotten a rebound and was holding it high while three shorter players who couldn't reach that high were bodying her up and slapping at her arms. Two were in front and one behind. She turned away from the two in front and inadvertently hit the one behind in the head with an elbow. Mandatory ejection under the new idiotic rule for that season.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - crackpot - 03-05-2022
(03-04-2022, 09:33 PM)chimera Wrote: I think Hollingshed should have been tossed. Pushing someone hard in the face and keep pushing even when the player is trying to back away? Come on. Brink should not have thrown the ball, and deserved a T for that but Hollingshed should have been gone. CO coach should not allow that sort of thing. She encourages her players to play rough. Not a fan. Hollingshed has been doing that crap her whole career. She threw elbows at Lexie in the last game at Maples, no calls, nothing. I think if Brink had not retaliated, maybe they toss Hollingshed.
At any rate, we handled the game well. Wilson has been fabulous in this tournament. Brink was great. Jones played well aside from a couple of TOs. Both Hulls did as usual, which we take for granted. Defense was very good. Missy decided that suddenly everything was a foul on us for a while but we still chugged along. Nice to see Emma-Nnopu get some time playing tough defense. Loved to see Bosgana get that steal and bucket.
I am rooting for Utah just because I like both their top frosh, fun to watch, but I think probably Oregon wins.
Rewatching for the zillionth time, it looks like what Brink did was still in the motion of get away from me! Also, it was Lacie who was getting pushed with Mya's right hand, meanwhile, Haley is like "are you gonna call a foul, or what?"
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - BosCard - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 10:10 AM)BobK Wrote: Stanford go small? No Utah shot just under 50% from 2 and outreboubded Iregon by 1
Just play our game. Go inside over and over
But please not too many fouls Utah has shooters
I hope we see more of the triple big lineups that Tara used in the Colorado game. Brink, Iriafen and Jones. Or Brink, Belibi and Jones. Or Prechtel, Belibi and Jones.
Brink, Belibi, Iriafen and Jones can all stay in front of guards and are extremely difficult to shoot over. And the other posts (like Prechtel) can roam the paint as secondary shot blockers. And Brink, Belibi, Iriafen and Jones can all exploit mismatches for easier post points.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - qwerty49 - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 10:10 AM)BobK Wrote: Stanford go small? No Utah shot just under 50% from 2 and outreboubded Iregon by 1
Just play our game. Go inside over and over
But please not too many fouls Utah has shooters
Wilson is really the only one who can keep up with their guards. I too was amazed how quick they were.
They will try to drive and get Brink in foul trouble. Brink is the primary key on both O and D. If not then the other posts have to step up. Maybe the key for us is to get Rees in foul trouble. Their other post didn't seem very nimble at all.
Although the Oregon guards did get free pretty often for midrange jumpers. Maybe something we can exploit.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - crackpot - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 11:04 AM)BobK Wrote: Yes on Jayne. It was a new rule and the player guarding Jayne when Jayne had the ball was like 5-8 Jayne rotated lol her elbows and hit the player whose face was elbow high.
Yup. Charlie what's-his-name made that call. Then we worried for a couple of days whether the conference would rule Jayne ineligible for two games. Both Nikki Fargas and the player who was it said they knew it was not intentional.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - TheWildJacko - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 11:21 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:(03-05-2022, 03:57 AM)M T Wrote: Did you notice the other female ref called a 5-second call in less than 3 seconds (per the clock on the screen)? I think she realized it, as about 10 seconds later she called a travel I couldn't see on the other team. (I believe this is the same ref I commented on her fast 5-second call in another game).
Later in the game, I noticed a CU player pull down an offensive rebound and stay in the lane for about 8 seconds (after she passed the ball off, and without any shots).
I noticed a very fast 3-second call on Haley when she got bottled up near the low block. At least the announcers said 3 seconds, and on replay I could see she did have one foot in the lane. That one was followed quickly by a travel call at the other end. Is that the sequence you mean?
I texted my dad after watching the replay on that 3-second call, that that wasn't 3 seconds even on slo-mo. It was a VERY fast 3 seconds! You could see the ref making the counting motion and it looked like each gesture was about 0.5 seconds max on the replay.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - WBB fan - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 11:30 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:(03-05-2022, 11:04 AM)BobK Wrote: Yes on Jayne. It was a new rule and the player guarding Jayne when Jayne had the ball was like 5-8 Jayne rotated lol her elbows and hit the player whose face was elbow high.
Yes. Jayne had gotten a rebound and was holding it high while three shorter players who couldn't reach that high were bodying her up and slapping at her arms. Two were in front and one behind. She turned away from the two in front and inadvertently hit the one behind in the head with an elbow. Mandatory ejection under the new idiotic rule for that season.
Amazing how Cardboarders remember details of games from years ago! All I remember of the Jayne event was the look of "What??!" on her face when she was ejected and comments about how she'd never experienced anything like that before. But love these details of what happened. Maybe what Tara really meant was that she'd never had a player ejected who deserved to be!
BTW, on another past detail that has stuck with me, not about Jayne, but Chiney. When Haley made those falling on her butt shots that went in against Oregon, it reminded me of a similar shot Chiney made against OSU at Maples. She was falling down backwards and heaved the ball up and in just as she hit the ground. The look on her face was priceless, her big eyes even bigger than usual in all the replays.
Baez87 - Baez87 - 03-05-2022
Our Board discussion of the skirmish between Brink and Hollingshed was foreshadowed by a debate a few days ago about the application of the rules of engagement to the play of the game. As I recall the discussion, opinion ranged on a continuum from "apply the rules strictly as written" to "let them play."
In general, each ref seems to have a style of calling the game. Some seem to get caught up in watching rather than calling, others seem to anticipate an infraction or to interpolate what they cannot see, others seem to see the play more accurately. In any game, the resulting accumulative calls are not perfect, so we will never see a game in which the rules are applied perfectly as they are written. And there will always be some level of subjectivity, bias, human error, and dispute.
I found in reading the various opinions on the Brink-Hollingshed skirmish to be useful in dissecting the rules and their interpretation. I noticed that my own opinion of "the call" fell slightly closer to the "let them play" polarity. In my purely rules-oriented view, both players should have been assessed a level 2 technical and been ejected (and, according to the rules, kept out of their next game). In my flow-of-the-game interpretation, I felt that the refs chose a very wise course of action. They didn't interject themselves in the game by strictly applying the rules, instead they took a course of action that acknowledged that an infraction had occurred and gave each player a technical, which also served as a warning that a future tech would result in an automatic ejection. In that way, all key players could remain on the floor, the game was clearly under the control of the officials, and no one could say that the refs altered the course of the game.
I like to give the refs grief anytime I can, but in this instance it seems like they gave us the best of all possible worlds in their decision.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - CompSci87 - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 12:30 PM)WBB fan Wrote:(03-05-2022, 11:30 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:(03-05-2022, 11:04 AM)BobK Wrote: Yes on Jayne. It was a new rule and the player guarding Jayne when Jayne had the ball was like 5-8 Jayne rotated lol her elbows and hit the player whose face was elbow high.
Yes. Jayne had gotten a rebound and was holding it high while three shorter players who couldn't reach that high were bodying her up and slapping at her arms. Two were in front and one behind. She turned away from the two in front and inadvertently hit the one behind in the head with an elbow. Mandatory ejection under the new idiotic rule for that season.
Amazing how Cardboarders remember details of games from years ago! All I remember of the Jayne event was the look of "What??!" on her face when she was ejected and comments about how she'd never experienced anything like that before. But love these details of what happened. Maybe what Tara really meant was that she'd never had a player ejected who deserved to be!
BTW, on another past detail that has stuck with me, not about Jayne, but Chiney. When Haley made those falling on her butt shots that went in against Oregon, it reminded me of a similar shot Chiney made against OSU at Maples. She was falling down backwards and heaved the ball up and in just as she hit the ground. The look on her face was priceless, her big eyes even bigger than usual in all the replays.
That's a great Chiney memory. The one that sticks in my mind is when she was driving on a fast break and threw up a shot while getting shoved out of bounds across the left baseline. After she picked herself up off the floor and everyone was cheering, you could read her lips on the replay saying "Did it go in?" Yes it did!
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - TonyLima - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 11:53 AM)crackpot Wrote:(03-05-2022, 11:04 AM)BobK Wrote: Yes on Jayne. It was a new rule and the player guarding Jayne when Jayne had the ball was like 5-8 Jayne rotated lol her elbows and hit the player whose face was elbow high.
Yup. Charlie what's-his-name made that call. Then we worried for a couple of days whether the conference would rule Jayne ineligible for two games. Both Nikki Fargas and the player who was it said they knew it was not intentional.
Out for a walk with my lovely (6 foot) wife. I told her this story. She replied, “Should have thrown out the three players surrounding her for being too short.”
RE: Baez87 - BillBradley - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 01:29 PM)Baez87 Wrote: Our Board discussion of the skirmish between Brink and Hollingshed was foreshadowed by a debate a few days ago about the application of the rules of engagement to the play of the game. As I recall the discussion, opinion ranged on a continuum from "apply the rules strictly as written" to "let them play."Yes. I also applaud how they handled it. I also applaud Cam for sticking up for herself. Throwing the ball at Hollingshed and essentially saying "f off, we don't take b.s. like this from anyone" was way more valuable than following the rules and perhaps getting Hollingshed ejected. Tara has gone on record saying <paraphrasing> "no more Stanford-nice". Good for Cam showing her team how to walk that walk. And then going down and dropping bucket after bucket on top of them, even hitting the 3...so impressive. "I am Cameron Brink and you're not" is one of the best lines I've ever heard during a college women's game. So awesome.
In general, each ref seems to have a style of calling the game. Some seem to get caught up in watching rather than calling, others seem to anticipate an infraction or to interpolate what they cannot see, others seem to see the play more accurately. In any game, the resulting accumulative calls are not perfect, so we will never see a game in which the rules are applied perfectly as they are written. And there will always be some level of subjectivity, bias, human error, and dispute.
I found in reading the various opinions on the Brink-Hollingshed skirmish to be useful in dissecting the rules and their interpretation. I noticed that my own opinion of "the call" fell slightly closer to the "let them play" polarity. In my purely rules-oriented view, both players should have been assessed a level 2 technical and been ejected (and, according to the rules, kept out of their next game). In my flow-of-the-game interpretation, I felt that the refs chose a very wise course of action. They didn't interject themselves in the game by strictly applying the rules, instead they took a course of action that acknowledged that an infraction had occurred and gave each player a technical, which also served as a warning that a future tech would result in an automatic ejection. In that way, all key players could remain on the floor, the game was clearly under the control of the officials, and no one could say that the refs altered the course of the game.
I like to give the refs grief anytime I can, but in this instance it seems like they gave us the best of all possible worlds in their decision.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - here4WBB - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 11:04 AM)BobK Wrote: Yes on Jayne. It was a new rule and the player guarding Jayne when Jayne had the ball was like 5-8 Jayne rotated lol her elbows and hit the player whose face was elbow high.
we were at Maples for that game. There was a great deal of confusion for the fans, probably at least partially because of it being a new rule. They called the T and Jayne first went to the bench, then left the court. It was the loudest booing I had ever heard at Maples -- and since.-- Booing and feet pounding on the stands. A very emotional moment.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - Erika - 03-05-2022
Buff Zone J.R. Payne comments re Tara's 1000th win at Stanford:
“Tara has set the table for most of us that are coaching as far as helping to grow opportunities for women in sport, helping to pave the way for people like me to be able to coach,” Payne said. “She’s the best. She’s the winningest coach in basketball history and I’m proud to be a co-coach in the Pac-12, I’m proud to be a friend of hers and excited for the accomplishment that she achieved tonight.”
In a related article, the Brink/Hollingshed fouls described as nothing more than an entanglement.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - WBB fan - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 06:14 PM)Erika Wrote: Buff Zone J.R. Payne comments re Tara's 1000th win at Stanford:
“Tara has set the table for most of us that are coaching as far as helping to grow opportunities for women in sport, helping to pave the way for people like me to be able to coach,” Payne said. “She’s the best. She’s the winningest coach in basketball history and I’m proud to be a co-coach in the Pac-12, I’m proud to be a friend of hers and excited for the accomplishment that she achieved tonight.”
In a related article, the Brink/Hollingshed fouls described as nothing more than an entanglement.
Gracious and appreciative on her part. I commend her, and I think she is spot on re Tara's contribution and significance. I just wish her coaching style reflected more of Tara's influence.
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - crackpot - 03-05-2022
(03-05-2022, 06:42 PM)WBB fan Wrote:(03-05-2022, 06:14 PM)Erika Wrote: Buff Zone J.R. Payne comments re Tara's 1000th win at Stanford:
“Tara has set the table for most of us that are coaching as far as helping to grow opportunities for women in sport, helping to pave the way for people like me to be able to coach,” Payne said. “She’s the best. She’s the winningest coach in basketball history and I’m proud to be a co-coach in the Pac-12, I’m proud to be a friend of hers and excited for the accomplishment that she achieved tonight.”
In a related article, the Brink/Hollingshed fouls described as nothing more than an entanglement.
Wow, entanglement...
Gracious and appreciative on her part. I commend her, and I think she is spot on re Tara's contribution and significance. I just wish her coaching style reflected more of Tara's influence.
![[Image: 1000.jpeg]](https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/4b92b53ec76f4193babf95bb0e46c184/1000.jpeg)
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/4b92b53ec76f4193babf95bb0e46c184/1000.jpeg
RE: WBB Pac 12 Tournament - triangle2 - 03-05-2022
Hollingshed better hope that WNBA scouts weren't watching the game. In my opinion, she just played her way out of the draft. The way Brink just lit her up after the incident is an illustration of the problems that Hollingshed faces at the next level - too passive, kind of moody on the court, plays small for her size, not strong enough to be a low post presence, not mobile enough/not enough of a shooter to be a stretch 4.
Loved that Brink showed passion and determination. We haven't had a player who wears her heart on her sleeve like that in a long long time - maybe since Nygaard.