[crackpot]

Nice article in WAPO this morning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...-stanford/

...in case you need a reminder of all times we've been so close...

[crackpot]

Nice article in WAPO this morning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...-stanford/

...in case you need a reminder of all times we've been so close...

[UltimateCard]

I think it is fitting that we won both of our final four games with defense.  Not a steal but just really good position defense that forces the other team into tough shots.  Beal having to shoot over Lexie.  And McDonald having to heave a shot over three Stanford defenders.

Per story in the Daily:
"But the defense came through, as it had all season long. Three of Arizona’s five lowest scoring games came against Stanford. On Sunday, they became the 12th team to shoot below 30%. Every Stanford opponent shot below 42%. Despite turning the ball over 21 times, Stanford’s defense held Arizona to 12 points off of turnovers.

"In three games against Wilson and Stanford this season, McDonald shot 25.8%. In all of the others she shot 43.9%. On Sunday, she was one-for-11 from inside the arc."

[UltimateCard]

I think it is fitting that we won both of our final four games with defense.  Not a steal but just really good position defense that forces the other team into tough shots.  Beal having to shoot over Lexie.  And McDonald having to heave a shot over three Stanford defenders.

Per story in the Daily:
"But the defense came through, as it had all season long. Three of Arizona’s five lowest scoring games came against Stanford. On Sunday, they became the 12th team to shoot below 30%. Every Stanford opponent shot below 42%. Despite turning the ball over 21 times, Stanford’s defense held Arizona to 12 points off of turnovers.

"In three games against Wilson and Stanford this season, McDonald shot 25.8%. In all of the others she shot 43.9%. On Sunday, she was one-for-11 from inside the arc."

[OutsiderFan]

https://theathletic.com/2498359/2021/04/...greatness/

My favorite excerpt from this article:

There were times this season when VanDerveer would yell at Jones, the Cardinal’s leading scorer, for not crashing the offensive boards hard enough.

Jones had a good excuse: She always thought it was going in.

This speaks to the confidence Jones had in her teammates. Never heard this before from a basketball player.

[OutsiderFan]

https://theathletic.com/2498359/2021/04/...greatness/

My favorite excerpt from this article:

There were times this season when VanDerveer would yell at Jones, the Cardinal’s leading scorer, for not crashing the offensive boards hard enough.

Jones had a good excuse: She always thought it was going in.

This speaks to the confidence Jones had in her teammates. Never heard this before from a basketball player.

[RuralFan]

Having been an official for a sport (a very long time ago) I'm going to go against the grain on this topic.  I find it very hard to believe refs have any intent other than to call the game the best they can.  There were coaches and teams I really didn't like for one reason or another but it never crossed my mind to make a call based on that. 

At this level the refs' careers are on the line.  They are constantly reviewed and evaluated.   With all the cameras nothing is going to be missed. 

I understand the big differential in fouls called on teams might imply something nefarious is going on.  I understand fouls apparently called in some situations and not other similar situations might be viewed as suspicious.  I just don't believe the refs are intentionally making calls for reasons other than doing the best they can do.

Maybe someday some start-up company coming out of Stanford will develop a system of machine vision to call the game taking away the human (imperfect) factor.

I have done a little referring in basketball, although a very long time ago and at a very elementary level.  I would like to have faith that what you have posted is correct.  I truly know how difficult it can be to distinguish between a charge and a block.  But I just can't make any sense out of watching the Championship Game.  Why was there such a large discrepancy between the foul calls against Stanford and Arizona?  What was Stanford doing wrong and Arizona doing right.?  Now it doesn't matter because the outcome of the game is not going to change.  On the other hand, it matters a lot on how teams will be taught to play.  Is the future of women's basketball Stanford style or Arizona style?

[RuralFan]

Having been an official for a sport (a very long time ago) I'm going to go against the grain on this topic.  I find it very hard to believe refs have any intent other than to call the game the best they can.  There were coaches and teams I really didn't like for one reason or another but it never crossed my mind to make a call based on that. 

At this level the refs' careers are on the line.  They are constantly reviewed and evaluated.   With all the cameras nothing is going to be missed. 

I understand the big differential in fouls called on teams might imply something nefarious is going on.  I understand fouls apparently called in some situations and not other similar situations might be viewed as suspicious.  I just don't believe the refs are intentionally making calls for reasons other than doing the best they can do.

Maybe someday some start-up company coming out of Stanford will develop a system of machine vision to call the game taking away the human (imperfect) factor.

I have done a little referring in basketball, although a very long time ago and at a very elementary level.  I would like to have faith that what you have posted is correct.  I truly know how difficult it can be to distinguish between a charge and a block.  But I just can't make any sense out of watching the Championship Game.  Why was there such a large discrepancy between the foul calls against Stanford and Arizona?  What was Stanford doing wrong and Arizona doing right.?  Now it doesn't matter because the outcome of the game is not going to change.  On the other hand, it matters a lot on how teams will be taught to play.  Is the future of women's basketball Stanford style or Arizona style?

[CompSci87]

Shot blocking teams can get a lot of fouls called on them because it's an easy to see foul if you miss the ball and get the arm. Plus those are always free throws.

Body bumping teams can get the benefit of block/charge/nothing calls going the other way, and even if it doesn't, it more often than not doesn't give the opponent free throws.

[CompSci87]

Shot blocking teams can get a lot of fouls called on them because it's an easy to see foul if you miss the ball and get the arm. Plus those are always free throws.

Body bumping teams can get the benefit of block/charge/nothing calls going the other way, and even if it doesn't, it more often than not doesn't give the opponent free throws.

[WBB fan]

I made that mistake in our national semi-final against Maryland about a decade ago.  I was on the treadmill while we played, and while I ran something like 12 miles, I also gave myself a stress fracture because I completely lost track of any pain I might have been feeling until after the end.

BC

Every time things got tense during the game, which was most of it, I got up and did laps around the kitchen island. I think I wore a rut in the floor, per my fitbit walked about a mile around a 4' x 6' island, around and around -- but no stress fracture in the foot. And it helped the stress in my overall body.

[WBB fan]

I made that mistake in our national semi-final against Maryland about a decade ago.  I was on the treadmill while we played, and while I ran something like 12 miles, I also gave myself a stress fracture because I completely lost track of any pain I might have been feeling until after the end.

BC

Every time things got tense during the game, which was most of it, I got up and did laps around the kitchen island. I think I wore a rut in the floor, per my fitbit walked about a mile around a 4' x 6' island, around and around -- but no stress fracture in the foot. And it helped the stress in my overall body.

[Spiny_Norman]

If you are in the area near Stanford, you can watch the championship parade today at 2 pm.


https://gostanford.com/news/2021/4/5/wom...ampus.aspx

[Spiny_Norman]

If you are in the area near Stanford, you can watch the championship parade today at 2 pm.


https://gostanford.com/news/2021/4/5/wom...ampus.aspx

[82lsju]

Having been an official for a sport (a very long time ago) I'm going to go against the grain on this topic.  I find it very hard to believe refs have any intent other than to call the game the best they can.  There were coaches and teams I really didn't like for one reason or another but it never crossed my mind to make a call based on that. 

At this level the refs' careers are on the line.  They are constantly reviewed and evaluated.   With all the cameras nothing is going to be missed. 

I understand the big differential in fouls called on teams might imply something nefarious is going on.  I understand fouls apparently called in some situations and not other similar situations might be viewed as suspicious.  I just don't believe the refs are intentionally making calls for reasons other than doing the best they can do.

Maybe someday some start-up company coming out of Stanford will develop a system of machine vision to call the game taking away the human (imperfect) factor.

I have done a little referring in basketball, although a very long time ago and at a very elementary level.  I would like to have faith that what you have posted is correct.  I truly know how difficult it can be to distinguish between a charge and a block.  But I just can't make any sense out of watching the Championship Game.  Why was there such a large discrepancy between the foul calls against Stanford and Arizona?  What was Stanford doing wrong and Arizona doing right.?  Now it doesn't matter because the outcome of the game is not going to change.  On the other hand, it matters a lot on how teams will be taught to play.  Is the future of women's basketball Stanford style or Arizona style?

well in the NHL...

The National Hockey League (NHL) said on Wednesday referee Tim Peel has been banned from working games “now or in the future” after being caught on microphone saying he was looking to call a penalty against the Nashville Predators.

The comments made by Peel during Tuesday’s game between hosts Nashville and Detroit were delivered shortly after he called a tripping penalty on Predators forward Viktor Arvidsson early in the second period.

Arvidsson’s left foot did make contact with the back of Jon Merrill’s right leg but replays confirmed the penalty call was indeed a questionable one since the Red Wings defenseman appeared to embellish the fall.
“It wasn’t much, but I wanted to get a (expletive) penalty against Nashville early,” Peel said a few minutes later before the TV broadcast went to commercial.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iceho...SKBN2BG2JD

[82lsju]

Having been an official for a sport (a very long time ago) I'm going to go against the grain on this topic.  I find it very hard to believe refs have any intent other than to call the game the best they can.  There were coaches and teams I really didn't like for one reason or another but it never crossed my mind to make a call based on that. 

At this level the refs' careers are on the line.  They are constantly reviewed and evaluated.   With all the cameras nothing is going to be missed. 

I understand the big differential in fouls called on teams might imply something nefarious is going on.  I understand fouls apparently called in some situations and not other similar situations might be viewed as suspicious.  I just don't believe the refs are intentionally making calls for reasons other than doing the best they can do.

Maybe someday some start-up company coming out of Stanford will develop a system of machine vision to call the game taking away the human (imperfect) factor.

I have done a little referring in basketball, although a very long time ago and at a very elementary level.  I would like to have faith that what you have posted is correct.  I truly know how difficult it can be to distinguish between a charge and a block.  But I just can't make any sense out of watching the Championship Game.  Why was there such a large discrepancy between the foul calls against Stanford and Arizona?  What was Stanford doing wrong and Arizona doing right.?  Now it doesn't matter because the outcome of the game is not going to change.  On the other hand, it matters a lot on how teams will be taught to play.  Is the future of women's basketball Stanford style or Arizona style?

well in the NHL...

The National Hockey League (NHL) said on Wednesday referee Tim Peel has been banned from working games “now or in the future” after being caught on microphone saying he was looking to call a penalty against the Nashville Predators.

The comments made by Peel during Tuesday’s game between hosts Nashville and Detroit were delivered shortly after he called a tripping penalty on Predators forward Viktor Arvidsson early in the second period.

Arvidsson’s left foot did make contact with the back of Jon Merrill’s right leg but replays confirmed the penalty call was indeed a questionable one since the Red Wings defenseman appeared to embellish the fall.
“It wasn’t much, but I wanted to get a (expletive) penalty against Nashville early,” Peel said a few minutes later before the TV broadcast went to commercial.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iceho...SKBN2BG2JD

[crackpot]

Shot blocking teams can get a lot of fouls called on them because it's an easy to see foul if you miss the ball and get the arm. Plus those are always free throws.

Body bumping teams can get the benefit of block/charge/nothing calls going the other way, and even if it doesn't, it more often than not doesn't give the opponent free throws.

I don't remember Fran getting to the line. 

[crackpot]

Shot blocking teams can get a lot of fouls called on them because it's an easy to see foul if you miss the ball and get the arm. Plus those are always free throws.

Body bumping teams can get the benefit of block/charge/nothing calls going the other way, and even if it doesn't, it more often than not doesn't give the opponent free throws.

I don't remember Fran getting to the line. 

[jonnyss]

stat of the game, the post play: cate reese and lauren ware scored 4 points and grabbed 2 rebounds. brink and prechtel scored 17 and grabbed 15.

[jonnyss]

stat of the game, the post play: cate reese and lauren ware scored 4 points and grabbed 2 rebounds. brink and prechtel scored 17 and grabbed 15.

[BostonCard]

Most of the fouls against us were when McDonald or Pellington would dribble drive into the paint and we were a step slow defending.  The two Arizona guards were the only two to draw fouls.  Ten of our 17 fouls were by Wilson, Hull, or Williams, again, mostly trying to keep up with a driving player.

On the other hand, we didn't drive as much; many of our points were on cuts to the basket or entry passes to one of our bigs, or via a three-pointer.  We did draw a foul on penetration by Jones, but she made the basket so we only got one free throw.  The overall foul discrepancy was 17 - 11, which is not that severe.  Arizona probably could have been called a few more times for hand-checking and aggressive perimeter defense, but I don't think that was a deliberate plan by the officials to disadvantage us.

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.

BC

[BostonCard]

Most of the fouls against us were when McDonald or Pellington would dribble drive into the paint and we were a step slow defending.  The two Arizona guards were the only two to draw fouls.  Ten of our 17 fouls were by Wilson, Hull, or Williams, again, mostly trying to keep up with a driving player.

On the other hand, we didn't drive as much; many of our points were on cuts to the basket or entry passes to one of our bigs, or via a three-pointer.  We did draw a foul on penetration by Jones, but she made the basket so we only got one free throw.  The overall foul discrepancy was 17 - 11, which is not that severe.  Arizona probably could have been called a few more times for hand-checking and aggressive perimeter defense, but I don't think that was a deliberate plan by the officials to disadvantage us.

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

Some additional stats:

Points in the paint (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 8 6 12 10 - 36
Arizona - 0 10 8 2 - 20

2nd chance points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 5 6 0 0 - 11
Arizona - 0 0 0 0 - 0

Points off turnovers (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 3 2 0 2 - 7
Arizona - 0 4 4 4 - 12

Fast break points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 2 0 4 0 - 6
Arizona - 0 2 6 6 - 14

---

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.


BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

[Spiny_Norman]

Some additional stats:

Points in the paint (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 8 6 12 10 - 36
Arizona - 0 10 8 2 - 20

2nd chance points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 5 6 0 0 - 11
Arizona - 0 0 0 0 - 0

Points off turnovers (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 3 2 0 2 - 7
Arizona - 0 4 4 4 - 12

Fast break points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 2 0 4 0 - 6
Arizona - 0 2 6 6 - 14

---

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.


BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

[magnus]

Some additional stats:

Points in the paint (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 8 6 12 10 - 36
Arizona - 0 10 8 2 - 20

2nd chance points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 5 6 0 0 - 11
Arizona - 0 0 0 0 - 0

Points off turnovers (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 3 2 0 2 - 7
Arizona - 0 4 4 4 - 12

Fast break points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 2 0 4 0 - 6
Arizona - 0 2 6 6 - 14

---

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.


BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

Thanks for confirming Spiny.  Thought I saw a foul call but the broadcast team fixated on the out of bounds.

[magnus]

Some additional stats:

Points in the paint (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 8 6 12 10 - 36
Arizona - 0 10 8 2 - 20

2nd chance points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 5 6 0 0 - 11
Arizona - 0 0 0 0 - 0

Points off turnovers (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 3 2 0 2 - 7
Arizona - 0 4 4 4 - 12

Fast break points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 2 0 4 0 - 6
Arizona - 0 2 6 6 - 14

---

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.


BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

Thanks for confirming Spiny.  Thought I saw a foul call but the broadcast team fixated on the out of bounds.

[bl82]

Just curious: am I the only one who was surprised that Lexie was not named the MOP? I have no doubt she earned it with her contributions in all the big and little things she does in so many aspects of the game across each of our tournament games. Some of what she does is subtle and a lot of it doesn't show up in the box score, but between her competitive drive and incredible situational basketball IQ I was really impressed by her tournament (even though she has showcased all these skills during the course of the regular season)

[bl82]

Just curious: am I the only one who was surprised that Lexie was not named the MOP? I have no doubt she earned it with her contributions in all the big and little things she does in so many aspects of the game across each of our tournament games. Some of what she does is subtle and a lot of it doesn't show up in the box score, but between her competitive drive and incredible situational basketball IQ I was really impressed by her tournament (even though she has showcased all these skills during the course of the regular season)

[BobK]

Thanks Spiny. I missed that also. Just another reason not to gripe
Too much.

By the way an amazing point to me. Wilson awesome D at the end on McDonald and then Two others come up and no one fouls

[BobK]

Thanks Spiny. I missed that also. Just another reason not to gripe
Too much.

By the way an amazing point to me. Wilson awesome D at the end on McDonald and then Two others come up and no one fouls

[BostonCard]

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.





BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

Thanks for setting the record straight.

BC

[BostonCard]

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.





BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

Thanks for setting the record straight.

BC

[BillBradley]

Some additional stats:

Points in the paint (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 8 6 12 10 - 36
Arizona - 0 10 8 2 - 20

2nd chance points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 5 6 0 0 - 11
Arizona - 0 0 0 0 - 0

Points off turnovers (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 3 2 0 2 - 7
Arizona - 0 4 4 4 - 12

Fast break points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 2 0 4 0 - 6
Arizona - 0 2 6 6 - 14

---

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.


BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

Thanks for confirming Spiny.  Thought I saw a foul call but the broadcast team fixated on the out of bounds.

Yes, thanks Spiny. That's good to know. I have some non-Stanford fans in my circle who like to toss b.s. my way. That play has come up a lot. Now I can toss back :>

[BillBradley]

Some additional stats:

Points in the paint (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 8 6 12 10 - 36
Arizona - 0 10 8 2 - 20

2nd chance points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 5 6 0 0 - 11
Arizona - 0 0 0 0 - 0

Points off turnovers (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 3 2 0 2 - 7
Arizona - 0 4 4 4 - 12

Fast break points (by quarter and total)
Stanford - 2 0 4 0 - 6
Arizona - 0 2 6 6 - 14

---

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.


BC

Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo (and apparently their producers) completely missed that the officials called a foul on Sam Thomas on the ball that went out of bounds off of a Stanford player. It was not a blown call by the referees. Check the box score. That play happened at 2:03, just outside the window when officials could use video review (as noted by the announcers).

Thanks for confirming Spiny.  Thought I saw a foul call but the broadcast team fixated on the out of bounds.

Yes, thanks Spiny. That's good to know. I have some non-Stanford fans in my circle who like to toss b.s. my way. That play has come up a lot. Now I can toss back :>

[oldalum]

I got the impression from interviews that the triple team, and even the double team, was not specifically planned in advance (and didn't happen right away; first Lexie came over after a bit, then Brink), so I also give Lexie and Cam credit for leaving their player to help out with Aari. Great pic on the Stanford website (in the photo gallery) of the wall Aari had to shoot over. Cam might have actually blocked her view of the basket as she jumped back to shoot.

[oldalum]

I got the impression from interviews that the triple team, and even the double team, was not specifically planned in advance (and didn't happen right away; first Lexie came over after a bit, then Brink), so I also give Lexie and Cam credit for leaving their player to help out with Aari. Great pic on the Stanford website (in the photo gallery) of the wall Aari had to shoot over. Cam might have actually blocked her view of the basket as she jumped back to shoot.

[M T]

Maybe someday some start-up company coming out of Stanford will develop a system of machine vision to call the game taking away the human (imperfect) factor.

I, and others, often come down hard on the refs.  I understand that virtually 100% of them are trying to do their best, but that doesn't mean that it is fair.  It seems very clear that some games are called tighter than others. Within the game, one could argue that it is fair, but is it fair to change it from game to game? 

Then there's the question of make-up calls.  Was the NHL ref who got caught on a mike just trying to be fair?  Are make-up calls fair?  I'm sure we could argue that until next season.

Then there's the question of making the game be what their employer wishes.  Frankly, I don't know if there is a wink-wink, nudge-nudge for refs to make the game close in any sport.   I'm sure that refs give mercy calls to a team hopelessly behind, and sometimes that results in a closer game than expected
 
Being a ref is a thankless job, but unquestionably necessary.

As for machines assisting or supplanting referees, I think doing it properly is a long way off.  But "properly" may not be the right bar to aim for.  I work with people that have been on the forefront of image processing for more than 50 years.  I remember the head of that group laughing at the thought that the technology for sideline calls in tennis that was being used was anywhere near as accurate as they portray it.  The bar may just need to be set such that it treats both teams the same, even if it is imperfect.  We don't yet accuse machines of treating different people differently.  

(An interesting stepping stone would be fully automated touch calls in VB, but that will require a higher frame rate and more resolution than the PAC-12 uses.)

But the human referee, just like the fan that I am, may see things differently because of his beliefs and expectations.   An external observer can reasonably question whether the referee was influenced by that internal state when he/she made or didn't make a call.

Indeed, one of the reasons I will question a call is when the ref is blocked from seeing the contact but still makes the call.

[M T]

Maybe someday some start-up company coming out of Stanford will develop a system of machine vision to call the game taking away the human (imperfect) factor.

I, and others, often come down hard on the refs.  I understand that virtually 100% of them are trying to do their best, but that doesn't mean that it is fair.  It seems very clear that some games are called tighter than others. Within the game, one could argue that it is fair, but is it fair to change it from game to game? 

Then there's the question of make-up calls.  Was the NHL ref who got caught on a mike just trying to be fair?  Are make-up calls fair?  I'm sure we could argue that until next season.

Then there's the question of making the game be what their employer wishes.  Frankly, I don't know if there is a wink-wink, nudge-nudge for refs to make the game close in any sport.   I'm sure that refs give mercy calls to a team hopelessly behind, and sometimes that results in a closer game than expected
 
Being a ref is a thankless job, but unquestionably necessary.

As for machines assisting or supplanting referees, I think doing it properly is a long way off.  But "properly" may not be the right bar to aim for.  I work with people that have been on the forefront of image processing for more than 50 years.  I remember the head of that group laughing at the thought that the technology for sideline calls in tennis that was being used was anywhere near as accurate as they portray it.  The bar may just need to be set such that it treats both teams the same, even if it is imperfect.  We don't yet accuse machines of treating different people differently.  

(An interesting stepping stone would be fully automated touch calls in VB, but that will require a higher frame rate and more resolution than the PAC-12 uses.)

But the human referee, just like the fan that I am, may see things differently because of his beliefs and expectations.   An external observer can reasonably question whether the referee was influenced by that internal state when he/she made or didn't make a call.

Indeed, one of the reasons I will question a call is when the ref is blocked from seeing the contact but still makes the call.

[RuralFan]

Most of the fouls against us were when McDonald or Pellington would dribble drive into the paint and we were a step slow defending.  The two Arizona guards were the only two to draw fouls.  Ten of our 17 fouls were by Wilson, Hull, or Williams, again, mostly trying to keep up with a driving player.

On the other hand, we didn't drive as much; many of our points were on cuts to the basket or entry passes to one of our bigs, or via a three-pointer.  We did draw a foul on penetration by Jones, but she made the basket so we only got one free throw.  The overall foul discrepancy was 17 - 11, which is not that severe.  Arizona probably could have been called a few more times for hand-checking and aggressive perimeter defense, but I don't think that was a deliberate plan by the officials to disadvantage us.

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.

BC

I actually couldn't agree more. In this case, it reflects the difference in style.

If officials are going to ignore grabbing the off ball hand of a dibbling player, or moving ones feet or hips of shoulders after setting a screen, or charging directly into a defensive player, while calling a defensive foul every time a player drives to the basket; then Arizona wins almost every time.  We were lucky, but I don't think Tara will ever coach that way.

[RuralFan]

Most of the fouls against us were when McDonald or Pellington would dribble drive into the paint and we were a step slow defending.  The two Arizona guards were the only two to draw fouls.  Ten of our 17 fouls were by Wilson, Hull, or Williams, again, mostly trying to keep up with a driving player.

On the other hand, we didn't drive as much; many of our points were on cuts to the basket or entry passes to one of our bigs, or via a three-pointer.  We did draw a foul on penetration by Jones, but she made the basket so we only got one free throw.  The overall foul discrepancy was 17 - 11, which is not that severe.  Arizona probably could have been called a few more times for hand-checking and aggressive perimeter defense, but I don't think that was a deliberate plan by the officials to disadvantage us.

Generally, I find griping about officials to be a bit distasteful, especially when both teams can point to legitimate blown calls (for example, the out of bounds late in the game that gave us possession, even though the ball clearly went off a Stanford player).  Discrepancies in fouls can be illuminating, but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of bias.  In this case, it reflects the difference in style.

BC

I actually couldn't agree more. In this case, it reflects the difference in style.

If officials are going to ignore grabbing the off ball hand of a dibbling player, or moving ones feet or hips of shoulders after setting a screen, or charging directly into a defensive player, while calling a defensive foul every time a player drives to the basket; then Arizona wins almost every time.  We were lucky, but I don't think Tara will ever coach that way.