03-30-2021, 08:00 AM
No villains?
I guess that depends upon your definition of "villain." There were people in striped shirts that blew the call. They did not enforce the rules of the game. It is their job to enforce the rules of the game.
If you don't like the word "villain," let's use different words: The people in the striped shirts were in the wrong here. Frankly, that point does not seem reasonably arguable to me.
Please don't give me this "the officials don't want to decide the outcome at the end of the game" baloney. When officials allow one team to clearly violate the rules of the game without sanction (and pretty much everyone, at least everyone on this board, agrees that this occurred), those officials, who are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, ARE DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.
I am a Stanford fan. I remember an official's use of a whistle on a play that, in many other circumstances, would not have resulted in whistle because "officials don't want to decide the outcome of the game," against LSU (unless my memory has faded). If the concept is that whistles are supposed to be swallowed at the end of the game (a concept that I do not agree with, but has been argued here and elsewhere), how did that call make any sense?
It is true, as others have noted, that there is a high degree of subjectivity in officiating in basketball. That is an inherent flaw in the game. I use the term "inherent" because I don't see how that can be removed from the game. The players are fouling each other pretty much all the time, so someone has to decide which fouls are flagrant enough to call. The players are often traveling, in the lane more than three seconds, palming the ball, double dribbling, using their off hand to push off, etc. I don't see a technological substitute in basketball for the humans who decide which of these infractions to call. [But, really, how can pushing off with the off hand be a foul 18% of the time? It seems to me that it either should be a foul or it shouldn't be.]
But, even accepting that there is room for subjectivity, folks that was rather clearly a foul. Actually, two fouls. No argument can be made for vertical position, as both players are not vertical. One hits the shooter IN THE FACE, for heaven's sake.
The officials are clearly at fault here, regardless of whether you want to use the term "villains."
And here's the rub, at least for me: No, it does not "even out over time." UConn gets far more than its share of the benefit of these errors by basketball officials (just like they did last time the Final Four was in San Antonio, to get them back into a game Stanford was dominating in the first half--and it worked). Just like _._._. does in football. And the SEC does every time the NCAA fills out a bracket, in pretty much every sport.
Yes, basketball is inherently flawed because it has a level of subjectivity that cannot be eliminated. But that does not mean that fans have to accept it when it happens.
Whenever a situation like this--i.e,. when officiating errors have a major influence on the outcome of the game--someone chimes in to say the players and coaches should have done something different. It is, of course, always true that the team that was robbed would not have been in a position to get robbed if it had been further ahead. But sometimes the game is close. Maybe in hindsight the player that got fouled twice (or, arguably, three times) should have passed the ball. But she didn't. She has the right to make the play she made and to have the rules of the game enforced when she makes that play. She got robbed.
To be clear, I HATE Baylor. That university has a horrible history of dark stories in its sports programs. And its women's basketball team has a history of benefiting from the "now its the tournament so we are going to change the way games are called" officiating over the years. I cry no crocodile tears for Baylor, as I have not one once of affection for that university and its sports teams.
I have a family connection to UConn. Admittedly, I am not a fan of UConn women's basketball. But if was forced to decide between UConn and Baylor, I would pick UConn. I own UConn sports apparel, as someone I love goes to school there. I surely do not own any Baylor apparel.
As a Stanford fan, I am not even sure which team I wanted to win this game. [My team is still in the hunt, at least for the rest of the day. While that is the case, all I really care about is how this affects Stanford, and I cannot figure out, under that standard, who I wanted to win this game.]
But the officials blew the call. Rather clearly, in my opinion.
The criticism should be directed primarily to them, IMO.
I guess that depends upon your definition of "villain." There were people in striped shirts that blew the call. They did not enforce the rules of the game. It is their job to enforce the rules of the game.
If you don't like the word "villain," let's use different words: The people in the striped shirts were in the wrong here. Frankly, that point does not seem reasonably arguable to me.
Please don't give me this "the officials don't want to decide the outcome at the end of the game" baloney. When officials allow one team to clearly violate the rules of the game without sanction (and pretty much everyone, at least everyone on this board, agrees that this occurred), those officials, who are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, ARE DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.
I am a Stanford fan. I remember an official's use of a whistle on a play that, in many other circumstances, would not have resulted in whistle because "officials don't want to decide the outcome of the game," against LSU (unless my memory has faded). If the concept is that whistles are supposed to be swallowed at the end of the game (a concept that I do not agree with, but has been argued here and elsewhere), how did that call make any sense?
It is true, as others have noted, that there is a high degree of subjectivity in officiating in basketball. That is an inherent flaw in the game. I use the term "inherent" because I don't see how that can be removed from the game. The players are fouling each other pretty much all the time, so someone has to decide which fouls are flagrant enough to call. The players are often traveling, in the lane more than three seconds, palming the ball, double dribbling, using their off hand to push off, etc. I don't see a technological substitute in basketball for the humans who decide which of these infractions to call. [But, really, how can pushing off with the off hand be a foul 18% of the time? It seems to me that it either should be a foul or it shouldn't be.]
But, even accepting that there is room for subjectivity, folks that was rather clearly a foul. Actually, two fouls. No argument can be made for vertical position, as both players are not vertical. One hits the shooter IN THE FACE, for heaven's sake.
The officials are clearly at fault here, regardless of whether you want to use the term "villains."
And here's the rub, at least for me: No, it does not "even out over time." UConn gets far more than its share of the benefit of these errors by basketball officials (just like they did last time the Final Four was in San Antonio, to get them back into a game Stanford was dominating in the first half--and it worked). Just like _._._. does in football. And the SEC does every time the NCAA fills out a bracket, in pretty much every sport.
Yes, basketball is inherently flawed because it has a level of subjectivity that cannot be eliminated. But that does not mean that fans have to accept it when it happens.
Whenever a situation like this--i.e,. when officiating errors have a major influence on the outcome of the game--someone chimes in to say the players and coaches should have done something different. It is, of course, always true that the team that was robbed would not have been in a position to get robbed if it had been further ahead. But sometimes the game is close. Maybe in hindsight the player that got fouled twice (or, arguably, three times) should have passed the ball. But she didn't. She has the right to make the play she made and to have the rules of the game enforced when she makes that play. She got robbed.
To be clear, I HATE Baylor. That university has a horrible history of dark stories in its sports programs. And its women's basketball team has a history of benefiting from the "now its the tournament so we are going to change the way games are called" officiating over the years. I cry no crocodile tears for Baylor, as I have not one once of affection for that university and its sports teams.
I have a family connection to UConn. Admittedly, I am not a fan of UConn women's basketball. But if was forced to decide between UConn and Baylor, I would pick UConn. I own UConn sports apparel, as someone I love goes to school there. I surely do not own any Baylor apparel.
As a Stanford fan, I am not even sure which team I wanted to win this game. [My team is still in the hunt, at least for the rest of the day. While that is the case, all I really care about is how this affects Stanford, and I cannot figure out, under that standard, who I wanted to win this game.]
But the officials blew the call. Rather clearly, in my opinion.
The criticism should be directed primarily to them, IMO.