You know about those nightmares, where everything is stacked against you. Well, that's what I saw when I walked in and saw it was Missy Barlow and Kyle Bacon as the two senior refs. Maybe, just maybe, Daniel Webster had the greater challenge.
A technical issue that might not have been clear: Late in the game (apparently OT 3:02), Stanford sorta gained possession and the ball was heading toward the Stanford basket, past the half court line, with (I think) Williams in front of the scrum. Lexie was fouled by a player behind her, and the refs reviewed it. I believe the review was to determine if this should be called an intentional foul (to prevent a fast break). But when the foul was committed, we didn't have possession of the ball (it was being fought over), per Missy's hand signal after the review. (A good call.)
As we saw, the refs impacted the game. Any time a game is tight, a blown call (and I thought there were several) can alter the outcome. Overzealous interpretation of the rules can also alter the outcome. As we know, per the rules, there are fouls on almost any interaction on the court. The refs get to call it as they see fit, missing fouls quite frequently and, all too often, calling fouls when there is legal contact rather than illegal contact.
While I'm still talking about refs, Belibi seemed to disagree with the ref about the held ball call late in the game, seemed to have a discussion with him, and then dropped the ball behind her back. I expect she'll get educated about this, and I hope that's the last time we see that. A technical on her at that point would have been a problem.
Haley Jones is listed as having a "technical foul". I didn't see the hand signal when it was called, after a video review, but I believe she was given an "intentional foul". From the one view of the replay I saw, I do think it was a legitimate attempt to make a play on the ball, it was not contact designed to negate an advantage (as it was an attempt to block the shot), and it did not involve the swinging of an elbow. So, the only thing Missy could have called was that it was excessive or hard contact. I did not think it was. The fact that the player fell was not, I believe, due to any excessive or hard contact. If they added a clause "Resulting in a risk to the opponent by her falling or colliding with an object or a person", then I'd agree. But that's not in the rules currently, but that seems to be the criteria being used.
============
Unfortunately, I don't think this game is available for us fans to review online or see a replay on TV. I'd like to watch it closer.
The refs weren't the reason this game was close. My hat is off to the Gonzaga coach and her players for the play of her team. She has only 2 returning starters. She didn't have superstars in her last two recruiting classes. But her players wanted it more and played at a faster pace than Stanford could handle. By the time it got to the last 2 minutes of regulation, I felt a loss was a real possibility.
Turnovers were about even (15 Stanford vs 14 Gonzaga) and less than I expected from what I saw at the game.
Our FT% did manage to stay above 50% (58.6%), but that's pretty bad. Our 3PT% was quite bad. 22.7%
22 fast break points sounds good, but Gonzaga had 18.
Stanford had the better shooting percentage (2ptFG% 44.9% vs 34.8%) which is consistent with Stanford scoring 36pts in the paint vs 22pts.
That's a bit odd because Stanford players taller than 6'0" scored a total of 29pts (38.2%) while playing 50.2% of the time.
(6'5" Prechtel 8pts (22min), 6'3" Jerome 2(16), 6'3" Fingall 2 (7), 6'1" Jones 11 (24), 6'1" Lacie Hull 3 (26), 6'1" Belibi 3 (18))
That's due to the fast breaks and the cuts to the basket.
Gonzaga out rebounded Stanford slightly.
They got 14 OR on 43 missed shots (32.6%). Stanford got 11 on 44 missed shots.(25.0%) [Not counting FT misses that led to rebounds]
They got 26 DR on Stanford's 44 missed shots (59.1%). Stanford got 28 on Gonzaga's 43 missed shots (65.1%)
Better shooting% would have helped, but I think the low percentage was due to the basic problem that the Gonzaga players were playing faster than Stanford was used to. As a result, Stanford was rather hectic and that led to rushed shots.
Gonzaga wiped the Stanford defenders with good screens. I'm pretty sure I saw one screen where the screener hip checked (slightly) our defender into the player she was trying to defend, resulting in a Stanford foul because the ref just sees the amplified 2nd contact. I also saw screens that were illegal screens where the screener steps in front of the defender late, violating Rule 10, Section 5: Screen, Art. 3: "A player shall not ... © Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction." I hope someone will remind Missy of this rule. Too often it is an automatic call against the defender if they contact a stationary screener, even if the screener violated this rule by stepping in late.
Gonzaga also employed convergence of several (typically 3) players in a small area (usually under or just in front of the basket) to separate themselves from the defenders. They would run past each other in 3 different directions, causing problems for any defender trying to hang with any one of them. The defender can't just follow their player as that space has disappeared by a different opponent crossing it. (Is there a name for this tactic?)
The box score indicates Williams, in the 2nd half, as hitting 6 of 10 (2 of 4 3PT), 4 of 6 FT, 2 DR, 1 TO, 1 A. But I thought she was making more bad decisions and bad plays than that, esp. with a very few minutes left in the game. I normally think of her as a pretty solid player, but my impression was she was playing a bit out of control. But I don't see that reflected in the stats. (Her "shot" that hit the underside of the backboard counts as just one of her misses.) Was I wrong? Did others see her as running the offense properly in those last six minutes?
One clear thing that wasn't working right was our bringing the ball up the court. Late in the 2nd Quarter, they sent 3 to trap the guard near the mid-court line, leaving 2 Gonzaga defensive players to guard 4 Stanford offensive players, but we didn't take advantage of it. I figured that at halftime, Tara would get those players to drive to the basket immediately when they got the ball, but that's not what happened. Gonzaga set up this attempted trap repeatedly in the 2nd half. Instead of attacking it and taking the advantage, Stanford dropped another offensive player (or two!) into the back court, slowing down our offense even more. Yet, we were still getting trapped in the back court, not daring to cross the mid-court line with a dribble, but now had less opportunity to take advantage of the Gonzaga defensive gamble.
I noticed that in the last couple of minutes of regulation, Tara was just sitting in her chair. To me it seemed like, if Stanford lost, she felt it would be a lesson they would take to heart, so she wasn't doing active direction of the players during play to facilitate the win.
Well, they say "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger." Stanford came oh so close to losing (which I'm sure will drop them in the polls) but I think they should have learned some important lessons.
A technical issue that might not have been clear: Late in the game (apparently OT 3:02), Stanford sorta gained possession and the ball was heading toward the Stanford basket, past the half court line, with (I think) Williams in front of the scrum. Lexie was fouled by a player behind her, and the refs reviewed it. I believe the review was to determine if this should be called an intentional foul (to prevent a fast break). But when the foul was committed, we didn't have possession of the ball (it was being fought over), per Missy's hand signal after the review. (A good call.)
As we saw, the refs impacted the game. Any time a game is tight, a blown call (and I thought there were several) can alter the outcome. Overzealous interpretation of the rules can also alter the outcome. As we know, per the rules, there are fouls on almost any interaction on the court. The refs get to call it as they see fit, missing fouls quite frequently and, all too often, calling fouls when there is legal contact rather than illegal contact.
While I'm still talking about refs, Belibi seemed to disagree with the ref about the held ball call late in the game, seemed to have a discussion with him, and then dropped the ball behind her back. I expect she'll get educated about this, and I hope that's the last time we see that. A technical on her at that point would have been a problem.
Haley Jones is listed as having a "technical foul". I didn't see the hand signal when it was called, after a video review, but I believe she was given an "intentional foul". From the one view of the replay I saw, I do think it was a legitimate attempt to make a play on the ball, it was not contact designed to negate an advantage (as it was an attempt to block the shot), and it did not involve the swinging of an elbow. So, the only thing Missy could have called was that it was excessive or hard contact. I did not think it was. The fact that the player fell was not, I believe, due to any excessive or hard contact. If they added a clause "Resulting in a risk to the opponent by her falling or colliding with an object or a person", then I'd agree. But that's not in the rules currently, but that seems to be the criteria being used.
============
Unfortunately, I don't think this game is available for us fans to review online or see a replay on TV. I'd like to watch it closer.
The refs weren't the reason this game was close. My hat is off to the Gonzaga coach and her players for the play of her team. She has only 2 returning starters. She didn't have superstars in her last two recruiting classes. But her players wanted it more and played at a faster pace than Stanford could handle. By the time it got to the last 2 minutes of regulation, I felt a loss was a real possibility.
Turnovers were about even (15 Stanford vs 14 Gonzaga) and less than I expected from what I saw at the game.
Our FT% did manage to stay above 50% (58.6%), but that's pretty bad. Our 3PT% was quite bad. 22.7%
22 fast break points sounds good, but Gonzaga had 18.
Stanford had the better shooting percentage (2ptFG% 44.9% vs 34.8%) which is consistent with Stanford scoring 36pts in the paint vs 22pts.
That's a bit odd because Stanford players taller than 6'0" scored a total of 29pts (38.2%) while playing 50.2% of the time.
(6'5" Prechtel 8pts (22min), 6'3" Jerome 2(16), 6'3" Fingall 2 (7), 6'1" Jones 11 (24), 6'1" Lacie Hull 3 (26), 6'1" Belibi 3 (18))
That's due to the fast breaks and the cuts to the basket.
Gonzaga out rebounded Stanford slightly.
They got 14 OR on 43 missed shots (32.6%). Stanford got 11 on 44 missed shots.(25.0%) [Not counting FT misses that led to rebounds]
They got 26 DR on Stanford's 44 missed shots (59.1%). Stanford got 28 on Gonzaga's 43 missed shots (65.1%)
Better shooting% would have helped, but I think the low percentage was due to the basic problem that the Gonzaga players were playing faster than Stanford was used to. As a result, Stanford was rather hectic and that led to rushed shots.
Gonzaga wiped the Stanford defenders with good screens. I'm pretty sure I saw one screen where the screener hip checked (slightly) our defender into the player she was trying to defend, resulting in a Stanford foul because the ref just sees the amplified 2nd contact. I also saw screens that were illegal screens where the screener steps in front of the defender late, violating Rule 10, Section 5: Screen, Art. 3: "A player shall not ... © Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction." I hope someone will remind Missy of this rule. Too often it is an automatic call against the defender if they contact a stationary screener, even if the screener violated this rule by stepping in late.
Gonzaga also employed convergence of several (typically 3) players in a small area (usually under or just in front of the basket) to separate themselves from the defenders. They would run past each other in 3 different directions, causing problems for any defender trying to hang with any one of them. The defender can't just follow their player as that space has disappeared by a different opponent crossing it. (Is there a name for this tactic?)
The box score indicates Williams, in the 2nd half, as hitting 6 of 10 (2 of 4 3PT), 4 of 6 FT, 2 DR, 1 TO, 1 A. But I thought she was making more bad decisions and bad plays than that, esp. with a very few minutes left in the game. I normally think of her as a pretty solid player, but my impression was she was playing a bit out of control. But I don't see that reflected in the stats. (Her "shot" that hit the underside of the backboard counts as just one of her misses.) Was I wrong? Did others see her as running the offense properly in those last six minutes?
One clear thing that wasn't working right was our bringing the ball up the court. Late in the 2nd Quarter, they sent 3 to trap the guard near the mid-court line, leaving 2 Gonzaga defensive players to guard 4 Stanford offensive players, but we didn't take advantage of it. I figured that at halftime, Tara would get those players to drive to the basket immediately when they got the ball, but that's not what happened. Gonzaga set up this attempted trap repeatedly in the 2nd half. Instead of attacking it and taking the advantage, Stanford dropped another offensive player (or two!) into the back court, slowing down our offense even more. Yet, we were still getting trapped in the back court, not daring to cross the mid-court line with a dribble, but now had less opportunity to take advantage of the Gonzaga defensive gamble.
I noticed that in the last couple of minutes of regulation, Tara was just sitting in her chair. To me it seemed like, if Stanford lost, she felt it would be a lesson they would take to heart, so she wasn't doing active direction of the players during play to facilitate the win.
Well, they say "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger." Stanford came oh so close to losing (which I'm sure will drop them in the polls) but I think they should have learned some important lessons.