Hard to believe there’s any controversy over this call. Sure seemed like an obvious foul to me. Am I missing something??
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was definitely more of a foul than a legal screen, but I would rather the refs had not called it..Hard to believe there’s any controversy over this call. Sure seemed like an obvious foul to me. Am I missing something??
The standard was met. This wasn’t a lean from a set position away from the play. She shifted her entire body, was still moving when she impeded the defender, and clearly gained an advantage as an integral part of the play.It was definitely more of a foul than a legal screen, but I would rather the refs had not called it..
Its one of those situations where you don't want the refs deciding the game based on a screen away from the ball.
At least I don't.
The flipside would be UConn hits a shot and Iowa fans are upset because UConn's center sets an illegal screen behind the play... and I would say "Oh come on, she wasn't even in the play."
To me, the standard for blowing your whistle goes up significantly when the game is on the line in a final possession.
Exactly, and the illegal pick or screen had everything to do with the play. The pick was set to free up the UCONN star, Paige B, to get an open shot and win the game.It’s a foul, and I don’t like it when the refs refuse to call even obvious fouls or penalties late in games. Ticky tack stuff should get let go for obvious things only, but the elbow throw made this pretty blatant. Just leave your hands down and I’d probably let the hip throw go.
Your standard was met.The standard was met. This wasn’t a lean from a set position away from the play. She shifted her entire body, was still moving when she impeded the defender, and clearly gained an advantage as an integral part of the play.
Not sure what your point is—that was a hedge, not a switch. Have you only looked at the floor view?Your standard was met.
Mine was not.
The girl chasing the ball was not in viable defensive position when she got bumped.
Iowa's big switched out to shut down the shooter on the other side of the screen.
It was a pick and roll play, with Iowa mistakenly ending up with two girls on the ball and the screener rolling to the basket.
You know you've made the big time when the refs intervene on your behalf.
Some of the takes on this No Chores are insane. It was an obvious foul on the most important part of the play (the pick) designed to free up UConn’s best 3 point shooter for the game winning shot.Exactly, and the illegal pick or screen had everything to do with the play. The pick was set to free up the UCONN star, Paige B, to get an open shot and win the game.
I think that was the overriding sentiment. Hard to say it cost them the game given ...Ironically, if UConn rebounds Caitlin's missed free throw, they might have had another shot because they had a timeout left and could have inbounded at half court. Also, iowa had a foul to give and might have taken it before Paige was able to shoot, Lots of moving parts to the final seconds there. Paige took the high road in the postgame saying one call doesn't decide a game.
Well, Iowa beat them last year in the semi-finals, so we'll see.It's irrelevant. South Carolina is going to wipe the floor with the Hawkeyes.
Absolutely. All any doubters need to do is watch the slow motion replay which makes it very apparent that the call was the correct one.Some of the takes on this No Chores are insane. It was an obvious foul on the most important part of the play (the pick) designed to free up UConn’s best 3 point shooter for the game winning shot.
You have to make that call in the moment. Make the call as they did and the explanation is easy and satisfying to any objective fan of the game. Swallow the whistle and what do you tell the Iowa coach if UConn hits the shot made possible by the foul?
In the moment is a key consideration here. You can’t justify anything based on how the play subsequently played out. Or on somebody’s subjective opinion of how the game had been called prior to that point.
GOUNUII
Absolutely. All any doubters need to do is watch the slow motion replay which makes it very apparent that the call was the correct one.
The comments you’re referring to were made minutes after the game. The ref made a decisive call, one that was borne out by the replays.People like me are saying the refs should not have called that screen a foul in that situation.
Let the players play to win or lose the game.
Thats it.
Scott Van Pelt said the same thing.
So did the Andraya Carter, the analyst, who said "that call sucked."
So did Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird.
Taurasi said "Let the players decide the game. That call sucked."
It was, in fact, unanimous, of the 4 people who were on ESPN after the game.
My reaction at the moment the call was made was "You can't make that call."
There are hundreds of calls every night that could be made or not made.
To decide who plays for the national title, It has to be egregious and that screen wasn't.
Apparently, the embellishment by the defender fools some people.
Saw a rooster like that in San Juan. Really colorfulThis is a fowl:
And this is a foul:
I remember listening to Rick Barry talk about illegal screens once and he was mentioning how they’re usually the fault of the player being screened for, not the screener.
In this case it was a timing play and when Bueckers starts her cut Edwards doesn’t have enough time to get in position, forcing her to body check Marshall rather than screen her. Most of the time when moving screens aren’t called the screener gets to a legal screening positing and then leans or takes a small extra step that officials overlook. In this case Edwards was never close to being in a legal position.
So to me the question is not “is it a foul?” since it obviously is, rather it’s “do we as viewers deserve to see the game end in a satisfying way even if it means casting the rules aside?”
PurpleWhiteBoy please review this. If you still believe a foul should not have been called, please visit your eye doctor at the earliest opportunity. Of course the slow motion make it even more obvious
Not particularly compelling, given that Taurasi and Bird both played at UConn.So did Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird.
A true Chicago Maroon would examine all evidence with analytical rigor and objectively determine that the call was made with perfect information and represents a free market solution.Only a partisan maroon, having reviewed the videos in just this thread alone, would still argue it wasn't a foul.
This post didn't age particularly well. SVP had not seen the sideline replay at the time he made his comments on Sports Center. Once he did, he admitted that it was a foul.People like me are saying the refs should not have called that screen a foul in that situation.
Let the players play to win or lose the game.
Thats it.
Scott Van Pelt said the same thing.
So did the Andraya Carter, the analyst, who said "that call sucked."
So did Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird.
Taurasi said "Let the players decide the game. That call sucked."
It was, in fact, unanimous, of the 4 people who were on ESPN after the game.
My reaction at the moment the call was made was "You can't make that call."
There are hundreds of calls every night that could be made or not made.
To decide who plays for the national title, It has to be egregious and that screen wasn't.
Apparently, the embellishment by the defender fools some people.
It was an obvious foul that the ref called correctly and almost instantaneously, and people who disagree need to get over it!PWB, fair enough, but you have to admit that the talking heads on Sports Center immediately after the game made no such concession that it was even a foul (though SVP later admitted that was incorrect).
As for your philosophical desire that the referees swallow their whistles on the 2nd or 3rd (or is it the 4th, 5th or 6th) to last possessions of the game, when does that cutoff begin? Last 5 minutes? Last 3, 2 or just the last minute? Which fouls should they call and which should be ignored? If you see that a team on offense gets an advantage by setting a moving screen, how big must that advantage be for the ref to make a call? Are there written standards to be applied to these call/no call whistle swallowing time periods? Sort of like the decisions on the Rules of Golf? Do referees get trained on which calls should be made or which (admitted!) violations of the rules should be ignored?
Seems to me that you and your philosophical desire to "let the players decide" the game creates a no win situation for a referee -- since this is a Northwestern discussion board, let's say that you're asking the ref to decide between the Scylla and the Charybdis!
If it's a foul, it's a foul.
I agree that the talking heads on ESPN underplayed the foul, but their main point of concern was aligned with mine.PWB, fair enough, but you have to admit that the talking heads on Sports Center immediately after the game made no such concession that it was even a foul (though SVP later admitted that was incorrect).
As for your philosophical desire that the referees swallow their whistles on the 2nd or 3rd (or is it the 4th, 5th or 6th) to last possessions of the game, when does that cutoff begin? Last 5 minutes? Last 3, 2 or just the last minute? Which fouls should they call and which should be ignored? If you see that a team on offense gets an advantage by setting a moving screen, how big must that advantage be for the ref to make a call? Are there written standards to be applied to these call/no call whistle swallowing time periods? Sort of like the decisions on the Rules of Golf? Do referees get trained on which calls should be made or which (admitted!) violations of the rules should be ignored?
Seems to me that you and your philosophical desire to "let the players decide" the game creates a no win situation for a referee -- since this is a Northwestern discussion board, let's say that you're asking the ref to decide between the Scylla and the Charybdis!
If it's a foul, it's a foul.
Keep in mind, two of those commentators were UConn legends, and ESPN itself was literally created by Bill and Scott Rasmussen in the late 70s as a vehicle for broadcasting UConn sports over these newfangled satellites. ESPN is not your place to go for unbiased UConn coverage.PWB, fair enough, but you have to admit that the talking heads on Sports Center immediately after the game made no such concession that it was even a foul (though SVP later admitted that was incorrect).
The problem with your analysis is that the foul was obvious and it occurred right in front of the ref. If you don't think it should have been called you are entitled to that opinion, but a whole bunch of knowledgeable basketball fans and analysts disagree with you, so let's leave it at that.I agree that the talking heads on ESPN underplayed the foul, but their main point of concern was aligned with mine.
You wrote "If its a foul. its a foul" However, every foul is actually a judgment call. There is no definitive standard on the vast majority of foul call/non-calls. Sure, some are blatant, but 90% are not. I found myself watching the women's games (as a neutral observer) and saying "Thats a foul,.. thats not a foul" many times throughout the games. Both teams, random players.
Think of all the rules the refs have to enforce - hook and hold, contact on the shooter after the shot is up, what contact is permissible, box outs, loose ball scrambles, dribbler extends forearm, blocking vs charging and on and on. Then you have all the infractions - traveling being the foremost - basically called randomly.
The only thing that is definitive is - did the ball go thru the hoop. So when the game is definitely on the line (UConn has the ball, down 1 with 10 seconds to play) I want the refs to focus on the ball and the shooter. Defensive hacks and blatant travelling are really the only calls I want to see made. If a rebounder shoves somebody out of bounds with both arms extended, okay call that - the team already got a shot up and missed... but thats all in line with letting the players decide the outcome.
That's the thing about the subjective nature of basketball refereeing. No matter how the call goes, a whole bunch of knowledgeable basketball fans and analysts are going to disagree with you.The problem with your analysis is that the foul was obvious and it occurred right in front of the ref. If you don't think it should have been called you are entitled to that opinion, but a whole bunch of knowledgeable basketball fans and analysts disagree with you, so let's leave it at that.