That was the right call and Clark doesn't even do any of the weird leg kick outs like we see in men's that draw that call. The defender left zero room for her.
2024 NCAA Tournament Thread
- Thread starter acoustimac
- Start date
@brentblum any legs to the rumor
The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
The force is weak within you.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Let me ask you, when you saw the play, did you say to yourself, "That was a moving screen." Because I sure didn't see it, after watching the replay for a couple of different angles, it was. But watching it live, I did not think it was a foul. The replay changed my mind, it if takes replay to do that, then it should not be called, I don't care if it was a moving screen or not. You let the players on the court decide the outcome.
We had the same discussion in the super bowl, with the eagle's player holding onto the receiver of the Chiefs, sure it was defensive holding, but I would not have called it on the first hold, the second one was, but how many people said it should not have been called at all?
In the end, EIU comes away with a victory that some would say was aided by the refs, if UCONN shoots the ball and misses, no one has that opinion, the call is the story, let it play out, if she makes the shot, then EIU fans are ******** about the moving screen, but we will never know.
The biggest play of the game was UConn not boxing out of Clark's missed free throw. They would have been in the exact same position before the illegal screen call had they simply boxed out.
UCONN had 8 seconds or so when the illegal screen was called a little past half court. The rebound was with 1.3 seconds and at the EIU end of the floor. The odds of getting a decent shot with 1.3 seconds are not nearly as good as with 8 seconds a little behind half court.
My first reaction was that it was a foul. But I didn’t see it live. I only saw the replay in full motion first.
And I disagree with your conclusion that if it takes a replay, that it shouldn’t be called. For us fans, we are watching on a tv with a different vantage point and the game moves much faster. For the refs, that’s their focus. They are on the floor. They can see the game much better than the casual fan. They are going to see things live that we aren’t. Yes they will miss things because they are human, but when they see something obvious right in front of them, they will call it.
They use the NBA rule, they would have gotten to inbound the ball at half court after a timeout. They would have had the chance a great shot.
But apparently since a foul was not called here (when it was not obvious there was one) is the reason there should not have been one called at the end of the game (when it was obvious). Also, we should not call obvious fouls, because the players should decide the game, so they can just foul and get away with it, oh and screw Iowa.
I think that is the argument here.
Here’s the problem with that logic, you aren’t watching for that, and your angle is from the TV shot, not from where the official was watching it.
Have you ever officiated at a high school varsity level or higher?
And one very weak example means it was happening the whole game and wasn’t being called.
I didn’t want Iowa to win, but UConn didn’t get screwed. Not by a long shot.
The way I saw the game, Iowa came out tentative and wasn't playing sound basketball in the first half. They were very lucky to not be down by a lot more at halftime. In the second half, they started playing better defense and it looked to me like they were intentionally not running the offense through Clark. They got things going and then Clark got involved. Hannah Stuelke played a whale of a game and well-deserved player of the game honors. In the star matchup, I thought it was easy to forget Paige Buekers was on the floor for a lot of the game. Not so with Clark. Even though she had a subpar game shooting the ball and still played indifferent defense, she was integrated into the offense and you couldn't forget she was on the floor. If Iowa had played better in the first half and shot a bit better, they should have won by 20. The Connecticut defender on Clark did a great job. Foul problems and a lack of depth certainly hurt Connecticut.
Is that the case on a rebound. I thought it was only on a made basket after a timeout. I don’t watch a lot of women’s basketball, so I don’t really know.
In this case, it shows the official made the correct call. The foul was a foul, and it was obvious enough that it should have been called even in a critical point in the game.
I dont comment on women's basketball much, but here's my 2 cents.
It looked very questionable live, and quite frankly I was shocked any kind of team from this state got a call like that. Upon further review of different angles, it was one of the most blatantly obvious moving screens I've ever seen and needed to be called.
You can't let something that obvious go in that situation, respect for that official for having the guts to make the call.
It looked very questionable live, and quite frankly I was shocked any kind of team from this state got a call like that. Upon further review of different angles, it was one of the most blatantly obvious moving screens I've ever seen and needed to be called.
You can't let something that obvious go in that situation, respect for that official for having the guts to make the call.
After any timeout under a minute the ball is advanced.
The women’s game has it right with rule changes, time for the men to catch up
Basketball by far is my favorite sport, so when there’s a chance to create a better viewing experience and an overall better product, I’m all for it. The changes the women’s college game has made t…
www.amestrib.com
Do Iowa fans get annoyed that every national outlet refers to them as “Caitlin Clark and Iowa…”?
