View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63934
Back to top |
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012 Posts: 5424
Back to top |
Posted: 02/02/23 9:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
42-27 Iowa in the 2nd. Iowa shooting about 70%.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012 Posts: 5424
Back to top |
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18066 Location: Queens
Back to top |
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012 Posts: 5424
Back to top |
Posted: 02/02/23 10:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Lesson to MD. You can't shoot 2-17 from 3 and expect to win at Iowa.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8269 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 02/02/23 10:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
And you can't have a defense so lousy that you allow Clarkzano to shoot 27-37. |
|
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 6886 Location: Home
Back to top |
Posted: 02/02/23 10:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Clark put on a show tonight demonstrating why she is the best college basketball player in country…simply amazing!
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
|
Ice
Joined: 20 Jul 2017 Posts: 32
Back to top |
Posted: 02/03/23 6:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Clark is so fun to watch!
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 02/03/23 12:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
undersized_post wrote: |
Maryland looked absolutely desperate and pathetic in begging the refs to call intentional and technical fouls on Iowa in the second half. NO IT'S NOT A TECHNICAL ON IOWA WHEN THE REFS GIVE THE BALL TO THE WRONG PLAYER TO SHOOT THE FREE THROWS YOU IDIOTS. That, plus pressing and fouling down 14 with under 30 seconds to go... not a good look. |
Actually, Rule 10, Art 3.a.5 of the current NCAA WBB rules book defines it as misconduct and a two shot technical foul for "5. Knowingly attempting a free throw to which they are not entitled"
It sounds like here she never actually attempted the free throw, but if the player actually takes the shot knowing she wasn't the one fouled, it would be technical.
I'm not saying that's what happened nor would I ever try to excuse Frese's endless antics, but it's not as far fetched rules wise as you seem to suggest.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
Posted: 02/03/23 6:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
undersized_post wrote: |
Maryland looked absolutely desperate and pathetic in begging the refs to call intentional and technical fouls on Iowa in the second half. NO IT'S NOT A TECHNICAL ON IOWA WHEN THE REFS GIVE THE BALL TO THE WRONG PLAYER TO SHOOT THE FREE THROWS YOU IDIOTS. That, plus pressing and fouling down 14 with under 30 seconds to go... not a good look. |
Actually, Rule 10, Art 3.a.5 of the current NCAA WBB rules book defines it as misconduct and a two shot technical foul for "5. Knowingly attempting a free throw to which they are not entitled"
It sounds like here she never actually attempted the free throw, but if the player actually takes the shot knowing she wasn't the one fouled, it would be technical.
I'm not saying that's what happened nor would I ever try to excuse Frese's endless antics, but it's not as far fetched rules wise as you seem to suggest. |
Shyanne Sellers committed a foul when Hannah Stuelke was trying to hand the ball off to Clark while Iowa was in the bonus. Both Stuelke and Clark took contact on the play. Stuelke took more contact initially, but the whistle came a second later, and Clark was the one who took the last bit of contact. It was conceivable that *either* Iowa player was fouled. The refs did not specify who should be shooting. Clark went to the line to shoot the FT's. After she *missed* the first free throw, Diamond Miller and Sellers went to the ref and starting making the "T her up" gesture. They claimed that Stuelke should be the one shooting and that Clark, being a much better FT shooter, was trying to cheat by shooting in her place. Frese then started echoing the same bullshit from the sidelines.
The ref who gave Clark the ball to shoot the first FT initially appeared to disagree with Maryland and waived them off, but then the other two refs came over and said we better review this. So they all went to the monitor to analyze who was fouled. They came away with the ruling that *Stuelke* was the one Sellers fouled. The refs took the blame for the mistake. Clark's missed FT attempt was then wiped from the scorebook, and Stuelke was awarded two fresh attempts. She went 1-2 from the line, which, ironically, would have been Clark's best possible outcome if Maryland had just kept their mouths shut.
You also have to understand that this happened at a point in the game when Iowa was leading by 10 points or so with 5ish minutes left. Maryland was running out of time, and getting extra possessions was their only hope at mounting a comeback.
_________________ RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 02/03/23 7:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
undersized_post wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
undersized_post wrote: |
Maryland looked absolutely desperate and pathetic in begging the refs to call intentional and technical fouls on Iowa in the second half. NO IT'S NOT A TECHNICAL ON IOWA WHEN THE REFS GIVE THE BALL TO THE WRONG PLAYER TO SHOOT THE FREE THROWS YOU IDIOTS. That, plus pressing and fouling down 14 with under 30 seconds to go... not a good look. |
Actually, Rule 10, Art 3.a.5 of the current NCAA WBB rules book defines it as misconduct and a two shot technical foul for "5. Knowingly attempting a free throw to which they are not entitled"
It sounds like here she never actually attempted the free throw, but if the player actually takes the shot knowing she wasn't the one fouled, it would be technical.
I'm not saying that's what happened nor would I ever try to excuse Frese's endless antics, but it's not as far fetched rules wise as you seem to suggest. |
Shyanne Sellers committed a foul when Hannah Stuelke was trying to hand the ball off to Clark while Iowa was in the bonus. Both Stuelke and Clark took contact on the play. Stuelke took more contact initially, but the whistle came a second later, and Clark was the one who took the last bit of contact. It was conceivable that *either* Iowa player was fouled. The refs did not specify who should be shooting. Clark went to the line to shoot the FT's. After she *missed* the first free throw, Diamond Miller and Sellers went to the ref and starting making the "T her up" gesture. They claimed that Stuelke should be the one shooting and that Clark, being a much better FT shooter, was trying to cheat by shooting in her place. Frese then started echoing the same bullshit from the sidelines.
The ref who gave Clark the ball to shoot the first FT initially appeared to disagree with Maryland and waived them off, but then the other two refs came over and said we better review this. So they all went to the monitor to analyze who was fouled. They came away with the ruling that *Stuelke* was the one Sellers fouled. The refs took the blame for the mistake. Clark's missed FT attempt was then wiped from the scorebook, and Stuelke was awarded two fresh attempts. She went 1-2 from the line, which, ironically, would have been Clark's best possible outcome if Maryland had just kept their mouths shut.
You also have to understand that this happened at a point in the game when Iowa was leading by 10 points or so with 5ish minutes left. Maryland was running out of time, and getting extra possessions was their only hope at mounting a comeback. |
First, whining, screaming, and other overacting bullshit nonsense and stunts is standard practice for Frese. I don't like her or her style. That said, if Clark actually took the shot, then I don't see calling for a T to be out of line. The only issue would be whether Clark knew she wasn't the right shooter which is a legit question to raise with the officials, it seems to me. Of course Brenda probably went way overboard, because that's her style, but I bet in similar circumstances there are plenty of other coaches trying to make up a late game deficit who would have demanded a T also. Get the officials to at least consider the possibility; who knows, they might decide she did it on purpose. Evidently they got it right, but it seems to me she was within her rights to raise the issue. It's not her job to decide whether Clark was innocent or did it on purpose, nor does she owe an opposing team any benefit of the doubt. So why shouldn't she raise it. Those are the officials' responsibilities. It's no different than a coach demanding a foul be treated as an Intentional foul. You might think the claim is absurd, but it's fair to make the claim and it happens all the time. Get the refs to consider it and let them do their job and make a decision.
The manner in which Frese raised it is a seperate issue.
|
|
|
|