Hard to believe there’s any controversy over this call. Sure seemed like an obvious foul to me. Am I missing something??
Was it a foul?
- Thread starter CoralSpringsCat
- Start date
The slow motion replay makes it quite clear that it was a moving screen and a foul. The slow-mo replay is all over the internet, and the ref got it right.
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.
I think it’s only controversial to those whose frame of reference was the ESPN replay, which was at floor level and importantly was from the waist up. The live angle showed not just a minor violation but an obvious call that had to be made.
Looked like she was auditioning for a position on the offensive line...it was a hell of a chip block....and YES it should have been called.The game is hard enough to call w/o asking refs to turn off and on what they see depending on its significance at the time. Or turning the game into fiction to fit a narrative....Maybe tv can hand out theater/play scripts b4 the game so ...and just like the Kardashians we will call it reality.
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’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.
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.
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.
Not sure what your point is—that was a hedge, not a switch. Have you only looked at the floor view?
Because from the original camera angle, it shows a lot more and is clearly an egregious illegal screen.
I think the call was defensible but borderline. I was cheering for Iowa, but I’d have preferred they let it go. The refs had taken a “let them play” approach for most of the game. Changing it in the last minute took away from Iowa’s win.
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
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.
I think that was the overriding sentiment. Hard to say it cost them the game given ...
1) They were already losing
2) They didn't get the rebound on the ensuing FT.
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.
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?”
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?”
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.
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.
Two of the people you’re citing went to UConn and the other work for a company with major operations in Connecticut. Far from neutral parties.
Saw a rooster like that in San Juan. Really colorfulThis is a fowl:
And this is a foul:
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
It was a blatant foul and the ref made the right call. Most of the videos I've seen from people complaining it wasn't a foul are shown from the court and you can't see her feet or just how much she drives that elbow.
Only a partisan maroon, having reviewed the videos in just this thread alone, would still argue it wasn't a foul.
Only a partisan maroon, having reviewed the videos in just this thread alone, would still argue it wasn't a foul.
Not particularly compelling, given that Taurasi and Bird both played at UConn.
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.
I’m only a casual basketball fan and that was an obvious foul on the replay that showed her whole body. Can’t set a screen while moving - not just moving but sticking your knee and elbow way out in the defender’s path.
And for those who say the refs shouldn’t call this late in the game - one commenter on another board said that’s why they don’t like to watch basketball, inconsistency in the calls. It makes no sense to “swallow the whistle” and call something differently than you did the whole game. Maybe something more subjective like a little contact in the heat of the last few seconds, but not a clearly illegal screen, that wasn’t even close.
If you want to say a foul shouldn’t decide the end of the game, then you shouldn’t commit an obvious foul. It’s not the refs’ fault. And if the illegal screen gave Beukers a wide open look for the game winning 3, then a foul (uncalled) would have still decided the game.
And for those who say the refs shouldn’t call this late in the game - one commenter on another board said that’s why they don’t like to watch basketball, inconsistency in the calls. It makes no sense to “swallow the whistle” and call something differently than you did the whole game. Maybe something more subjective like a little contact in the heat of the last few seconds, but not a clearly illegal screen, that wasn’t even close.
If you want to say a foul shouldn’t decide the end of the game, then you shouldn’t commit an obvious foul. It’s not the refs’ fault. And if the illegal screen gave Beukers a wide open look for the game winning 3, then a foul (uncalled) would have still decided the game.
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.
If Edwards' feet had been planted, inside her shoulders, and she had "leaned" out a little making contact, then it's probably a good play on. But that didn't happen here. She wasn't close enough to the dribbler, so she had to step wide to her left in order to set an effective screen. . . one, it turned out, would have been graded highly by Pro Football Focus. It was a foul. It was called correctly. If the ref had swallowed his whistle because of the timing of the play it would have been a travesty.
Hard as it is for me to say this, but good job ref! In a season where college bkb has been filled with pathetic officiating, Angel Hernandez bad!, the correct call was made.
I'll just respond in general to anyone who addressed me above.
I never said it wasn't a foul.
I said it shouldn't have been called a foul in that situation.
Its a philosophical thing.
If you want the refs to call every foul as written in the rulebook, you'll need 40 man rosters.
Let the players decide the game. Not the refs.
I never said it wasn't a foul.
I said it shouldn't have been called a foul in that situation.
Its a philosophical thing.
If you want the refs to call every foul as written in the rulebook, you'll need 40 man rosters.
Let the players decide the game. Not the refs.
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.
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.
It was an obvious foul that the ref called correctly and almost instantaneously, and people who disagree need to get over it!
Anyone who has ever reffed a sport knows that no ref wants to decide a game by making a close call in the closing minutes. That's human nature, plus generally the coaches and fans don't want that either. But there are limits. When a very large woman is shuffling over and makes a very long stride while throwing a shoulder and causes a petite guard to flail around, all right in front of the ref - that's a bridge too far. For a ref not to call a foul in that circumstance rises to the level of avoiding his/her responsibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You say the foul was "obvious".
Andraya Carter says "That call sucked."
Neither of you is wrong.
I agree with PWB's philosophical assertion that the players should decide the game. There is too much officiating in general, IMO, and excessive rule-making generally detracts from performance.
But this one strikes me as too hard to ignore. The feet are beyond the shoulders and the arm flares out from the torso.
But this one strikes me as too hard to ignore. The feet are beyond the shoulders and the arm flares out from the torso.
