[M T]

Re: Brink's "intentional" technical foul.   I never trust the TV announcers to report details correctly.  Especially announcers that are clearly tied to the home team.

Did anyone catch the officials calling the foul "intentional" (vs "technical")?  The box score indicates Brink got a Technical Foul.
You may ask, "Aren't intentional fouls technical fouls?"  No, the rules distinguish them.  For instance, 4-13-2 says a player is ejected if they commit one technical and one intentional foul.

First, let me clarify with what I believe happened.  A foul against Brink occurred and was signaled.  Subsequent to the signal (ie, play was dead), Brink tossed the ball (in the direction of the ref at the end line), and it hit the player charged with the foul.  (I'm avoiding claiming intent or lack of intent.)  A substitution was made.  Brink went to the line.  (Begin speculation) While the clock was stopped, I believe the ASU coach, per rule 11-3.1.p, appealed for the officials to review the incident for an intentional or disqualifying foul.  They reviewed but did not rule it an intentional foul, but that it was a technical foul (10-12.4.a.8 "Committing misconduct, including, but not limited to, the following:" "Committing a physical act of misconduct when confirmed by a replay review for an intentional or contact disqualifying foul.")

Regarding whether it was an "intentional" foul by the rules, it doesn't seem to meet the qualifications ("An intentional foul is a player-contact foul..."). There is no rule against throwing the ball at another player (If I were on the rules committee, I would push for such rule (even when it is to save an out of bounds).)  So, it isn't illegal contact or it would be called all the time.  The contact by the ball was mild.  II-4-a indicates that the severity of the contact is to be considered when determining if a foul is to be considered an intentional foul.

Then, I believe the officials made a mistake. Since there was no intentional or disqualifying foul, ASU should have been charged a timeout. (5-14-1.e)  Well after the ruling, ASU still was shown to have a full set of 4 timeouts.

So, what was the technical foul?  It was a misconduct foul, akin to, say, over-complaining to the official by a player or bench.

I think that was a reasonable ruling.

[M T]

Re: Brink's "intentional" technical foul.   I never trust the TV announcers to report details correctly.  Especially announcers that are clearly tied to the home team.

Did anyone catch the officials calling the foul "intentional" (vs "technical")?  The box score indicates Brink got a Technical Foul.
You may ask, "Aren't intentional fouls technical fouls?"  No, the rules distinguish them.  For instance, 4-13-2 says a player is ejected if they commit one technical and one intentional foul.

First, let me clarify with what I believe happened.  A foul against Brink occurred and was signaled.  Subsequent to the signal (ie, play was dead), Brink tossed the ball (in the direction of the ref at the end line), and it hit the player charged with the foul.  (I'm avoiding claiming intent or lack of intent.)  A substitution was made.  Brink went to the line.  (Begin speculation) While the clock was stopped, I believe the ASU coach, per rule 11-3.1.p, appealed for the officials to review the incident for an intentional or disqualifying foul.  They reviewed but did not rule it an intentional foul, but that it was a technical foul (10-12.4.a.8 "Committing misconduct, including, but not limited to, the following:" "Committing a physical act of misconduct when confirmed by a replay review for an intentional or contact disqualifying foul.")

Regarding whether it was an "intentional" foul by the rules, it doesn't seem to meet the qualifications ("An intentional foul is a player-contact foul..."). There is no rule against throwing the ball at another player (If I were on the rules committee, I would push for such rule (even when it is to save an out of bounds).)  So, it isn't illegal contact or it would be called all the time.  The contact by the ball was mild.  II-4-a indicates that the severity of the contact is to be considered when determining if a foul is to be considered an intentional foul.

Then, I believe the officials made a mistake. Since there was no intentional or disqualifying foul, ASU should have been charged a timeout. (5-14-1.e)  Well after the ruling, ASU still was shown to have a full set of 4 timeouts.

So, what was the technical foul?  It was a misconduct foul, akin to, say, over-complaining to the official by a player or bench.

I think that was a reasonable ruling.

[MV72018]

Great play by the two "bigs," obviously. However, there continues to be an area of significant concern: the seven non-starters who played scored only 11 points on 5 of 15 shooting in a total of 69 minutes of playing time. (Clearly Demeter played the best ball among them.)

Meager scoring by the backups could hurt the Cardinal downstream against strong opponents with depth.

[MV72018]

Great play by the two "bigs," obviously. However, there continues to be an area of significant concern: the seven non-starters who played scored only 11 points on 5 of 15 shooting in a total of 69 minutes of playing time. (Clearly Demeter played the best ball among them.)

Meager scoring by the backups could hurt the Cardinal downstream against strong opponents with depth.

[81alum]

Totally agree, except I thought Lepolo had a turnover early on.

I would have to rewatch the game to see what that was about, but the official scorer did not assign a turnover to her.  Perhaps it was assigned to someone who couldn't handle a Lepolo pass?

[81alum]

Totally agree, except I thought Lepolo had a turnover early on.

I would have to rewatch the game to see what that was about, but the official scorer did not assign a turnover to her.  Perhaps it was assigned to someone who couldn't handle a Lepolo pass?

[M T]

 However, there continues to be an area of significant concern: the seven non-starters who played scored only 11 points on 5 of 15 shooting in a total of 69 minutes of playing time. (Clearly Demeter played the best ball among them.)

Players have to play at both ends of the court.  I don't agree with "clearly".
Shortstops & pitchers usually aren't great hitters, but they are important players on baseball teams.

Re your significant concern about our second & third-string players scoring rate.
  Stanford (29/200  @47.5%) = 0.14 FG/minute
  Stanford non-starters (5/69 @ 33.3%) = 0.072 FG/min 
  ASU (19/200 @29%) = 0.095 FG/min. 
  ASU non-starters scored (2/51 @17%) = 0.039 FG/min

Ignoring the issue that players should usually feed to the highest producing players (usually a subset of starters),  Stanford subs scored at 50% of the full team.  They didn't quite score at the rate of the ASU team.  ASU subs scored at about 40% of their starters.

Using just the stats in this one game (which is too small really), our subs are further along the path toward being offensive producers than the ASU team.
I don't really understand the concern, other than noticing our non-starters are not (yet) our stars.

[M T]

 However, there continues to be an area of significant concern: the seven non-starters who played scored only 11 points on 5 of 15 shooting in a total of 69 minutes of playing time. (Clearly Demeter played the best ball among them.)

Players have to play at both ends of the court.  I don't agree with "clearly".
Shortstops & pitchers usually aren't great hitters, but they are important players on baseball teams.

Re your significant concern about our second & third-string players scoring rate.
  Stanford (29/200  @47.5%) = 0.14 FG/minute
  Stanford non-starters (5/69 @ 33.3%) = 0.072 FG/min 
  ASU (19/200 @29%) = 0.095 FG/min. 
  ASU non-starters scored (2/51 @17%) = 0.039 FG/min

Ignoring the issue that players should usually feed to the highest producing players (usually a subset of starters),  Stanford subs scored at 50% of the full team.  They didn't quite score at the rate of the ASU team.  ASU subs scored at about 40% of their starters.

Using just the stats in this one game (which is too small really), our subs are further along the path toward being offensive producers than the ASU team.
I don't really understand the concern, other than noticing our non-starters are not (yet) our stars.

[martyup]

Non-starters don't score as much as starters.  That is why they don't start.

[martyup]

Non-starters don't score as much as starters.  That is why they don't start.