WBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[scorekeeper]

What happened to the MIAC chatter on D3 Hoops?   This used to be one of the hottest message boards. 

There were some very interesting outcomes during the pre-MIAC schedule. 

What was more surprising; Concordia beating Cal Lutheran and clobbering Occidental or UST barely beating Occidental and getting clobbered by Cal Lutheran? 

St. Mary's looks to be much improved.

My Blazers are off to a nice start at 3-0.

Anyone else see some promise for their teams after a few games? 

[blazerguy]

I guess everyone is conceding the Blazers as #1. 4 returning starters and all 5 starters as seniors is a good sign. Top first off the bench are underclass, also good. I also really think 2 of the 2nd team are better than the first five. Good signs for a great year. Stifter and Gillund have been as expected, excellent! Young Canton at point is only going to get better and better, and a great athelete. Wilcox at 2nd center is looking great and playing solid minutes along with Sam Larson. Sam is sooo quick, she is surprising alot under the basket, and morgan dale might be the best athelete on the floor even with Canton and Larson. Looks like a very interesting year.

[LA RAMS]

Was at the CSB - St. Kate's game last night which CSB came from 10 points down around the 6:00 minute mark to claim the victory.  Arguably, they didn't bring their "A" game with them last night; and, they looked a little ragged at times but they did what they had to do when it counted.  Still, I thought this was a game that St. Kate's should have and could have won had they been able to take advantage of all the opportunities they had.

GAC gets started off on a good note; holding serve at home to beat Bethel. 

[scorekeeper]

For 34 minutes last night the Blazers and Wildcats hurt my eyes with some pretty ugly basketball.  I don't know if you want to chalk it up to tough D on each side or just poor play, but I think it was more of the latter as LA Rams eluded to.  However, the final 6 minutes made up the first 34, mainly because my Blazers pulled victory from the jaws of defeat.  I truly thought the game was over when they went down 10 as St. Kate's started getting contributions from their guards.  However, big 3 pointers by Waytashek and Dale along with driving shots by Stifter and clutch free throws by Whitney Canton put a nice bow on the win.  It would have been very difficult to swallow a loss last night to start the 5-time defense of the MIAC title.  It seemed apparent that the veteran play of St. Ben's was too much for a more inexperienced team in St. Kate's.  Also, CSB had huge defensive plays by Whitney, Dale and Gillund (a huge block by Gillund at the end).

It appears St. Olaf is much improved and will be a big test for the Blazers in their first home game Saturday.  By looks of the box score from Tuesday, had the Oles made their free throws they could have knocked off Concordia. 

LA Rams - was that you chatting with Durbin after the game?  If not, someone else is both a big Rams and D3 basketball fan. 

[LA RAMS]

Scorekeeper - Yep, that was me.

BTW, one thing that I wasn't able to get clarification on last night was the somewhat controversial call with around :19.7 seconds left when it appeared that one of the CSB players was being whistled for an offensive foul.  That call was inexplicably changed and subsequently charged to a St. Kate's player instead.  Can you or anyone explain what happened on that?

[blazerguy]

The idiot stripe made the right call but signaled the wrong way. He corrected it at the scoretable but never made any motion showing the correction. It was the same blind ref that didn't see Gillund take the elbow to the nose causing her to be removed from the game because of blood. A blow to the head is supposed to be a technical foul, intentional or unintentional, last I checked the nose was on the head.

[Wydown Blvd.]

A blow to the head is supposed to be a technical foul, intentional or unintentional, last I checked the nose was on the head.

No, not quite...

2010-11 NCAA WOMEN’S BASKETBALL ELBOW RULE

[blazerguy]

A blow to the head is supposed to be a technical foul, intentional or unintentional, last I checked the nose was on the head.

No, not quite...

2010-11 NCAA WOMEN'S BASKETBALL ELBOW RULE

Thanks for the information. It is sure confusing but if you wade through all the old rule, new rule, intent , not intent etc... etc..., you will find I am right. See copy of section that explains it best.
Changes for the 2010-2011 season.
• A foul that involves contact ABOVE  the shoulders with a moving elbow during live ball (not being swung excessively as defined in 4-36.7) MUST be a minimum of an intentional personal foul. This same foul could have been a personal foul, common or team control, before the 2010-2011 season. These fouls are no longer options for this type of contact.

[Wydown Blvd.]

A blow to the head is supposed to be a technical foul, intentional or unintentional, last I checked the nose was on the head.

No, not quite...

2010-11 NCAA WOMEN’S BASKETBALL ELBOW RULE

Thanks for the information. It is sure confusing but if you wade through all the old rule, new rule, intent , not intent etc... etc..., you will find I am right. See copy of section that explains it best.
Changes for the 2010-2011 season.
• A foul that involves contact ABOVE  the shoulders with a moving elbow during live ball (not being swung excessively as defined in 4-36.7) MUST be a minimum of an intentional personal foul. This same foul could have been a personal foul, common or team control, before the 2010-2011 season. These fouls are no longer options for this type of contact.

No, you were not quite right (for the purposes of this explanation of rules, Im assuming the girl who swung the elbows has the ball, otherwise there are different sets of rules for the elbows of offensive players who do not have the ball)...

1. first, a blow to the head is not necessarily a foul

New Rule Myths: The new rule change requires that a foul be called when an elbow makes contact above the shoulders. FALSE

2. whether or not the contact was illegal contact (therefore a foul) falls under Rule 9, and its at the discretion of the official if the elbow action resulted from total body movement.

Rule 9
Section 13. Elbow(s)
Art. 1. A player shall not excessively swing his or her arm(s) or elbow(s),
even without contacting an opponent.
Art. 2. A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the
chin or against the body.
Art. 3. Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movement
as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it,
releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not
be considered excessive

3. if that contact was deemed illegal and less than the contact for a flagrant foul (see rule 4-36-7 below), then the mandatory punishment is at least an intentional foul

Part 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders
as pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds
that of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot
foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s)
are swung is such that injury could result if another player were
contacted

4. A blow to a head does not have to be a foul at all. And it certainly does not have to be a technical foul which is what your first/original post said

[gacbacker]

Olaf beats St. Ben's? I guess there's a first time for everything. Seriously though, how long had it been?

[blazerguy]

A blow to the head is supposed to be a technical foul, intentional or unintentional, last I checked the nose was on the head.

No, not quite...

2010-11 NCAA WOMEN'S BASKETBALL ELBOW RULE

Thanks for the information. It is sure confusing but if you wade through all the old rule, new rule, intent , not intent etc... etc..., you will find I am right. See copy of section that explains it best.
Changes for the 2010-2011 season.
• A foul that involves contact ABOVE  the shoulders with a moving elbow during live ball (not being swung excessively as defined in 4-36.7) MUST be a minimum of an intentional personal foul. This same foul could have been a personal foul, common or team control, before the 2010-2011 season. These fouls are no longer options for this type of contact.

No, you were not quite right (for the purposes of this explanation of rules, Im assuming the girl who swung the elbows has the ball, otherwise there are different sets of rules for the elbows of offensive players who do not have the ball)...

1. first, a blow to the head is not necessarily a foul

New Rule Myths: The new rule change requires that a foul be called when an elbow makes contact above the shoulders. FALSE

2. whether or not the contact was illegal contact (therefore a foul) falls under Rule 9, and its at the discretion of the official if the elbow action resulted from total body movement.

Rule 9
Section 13. Elbow(s)
Art. 1. A player shall not excessively swing his or her arm(s) or elbow(s),
even without contacting an opponent.
Art. 2. A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the
chin or against the body.
Art. 3. Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movement
as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it,
releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not
be considered excessive

3. if that contact was deemed illegal and less than the contact for a flagrant foul (see rule 4-36-7 below), then the mandatory punishment is at least an intentional foul

Part 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders
as pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds
that of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot
foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s)
are swung is such that injury could result if another player were
contacted

4. A blow to a head does not have to be a foul at all. And it certainly does not have to be a technical foul which is what your first/original post said

OK Mr. Technicality, a light "blow" to the head that is not deemed a foul to begin with by the blind referee does not have to be ruled flagrant. However a "blow" to the head in what is considered by normal humans, "blow meaning a harder hit than a mosquito bite", is to be considered flagrant if in the opinion of the idiot referee it was truely a "blow" by human standards. I guess I am a little miffed by the officials that in the last two times Guilland was hit in the nose resulted first a concussion, secondly a bloodied nose, yet the offending players received NO foul even. What are you a bean counter?

[Wydown Blvd.]

It's Ms. Technical and no... legal profession, not a bean counter, but close enough

And, as someone who has dished out enough elbows that I would be pretty pissed if I got a technical or flagrant because of a misreading of the rules. Thats the only reason I hopped in, to make sure the rule change was interpreted correctly. I wasn't at the game, but an automatic assessment based on the results (concussion/bloody nose) within the context of a standard basketball move also seems a little harsh.

Sorry if you felt like I called you out, blazerguy. I really enjoy your postings on the MIAC. Im a UAA diehard and SLIAC fan so I try to stay somewhat knowledgeable of all the leagues and regions.

[blazerguy]

It's Ms. Technical and no... legal profession, not a bean counter, but close enough

And, as someone who has dished out enough elbows that I would be pretty pissed if I got a technical or flagrant because of a misreading of the rules. Thats the only reason I hopped in, to make sure the rule change was interpreted correctly. I wasn't at the game, but an automatic assessment based on the results (concussion/bloody nose) within the context of a standard basketball move also seems a little harsh.

Sorry if you felt like I called you out, blazerguy. I really enjoy your postings on the MIAC. Im a UAA diehard and SLIAC fan so I try to stay somewhat knowledgeable of all the leagues and regions.

No problem, I had a bad weekend and may be a bit ornery. Not only did my Blazers get beat by St. Olaf but my Hockey Huskies lost 2 at UND. And badly, at that. I get confused between my two passions, Blazer Basketball and Husky Hockey, when I go from one board to another and sometimes its hard to take my hockey cap off. 

[LA RAMS]

Olaf beats St. Ben's? I guess there's a first time for everything. Seriously though, how long had it been?

That would have been during the Bush administration (the first one, that is); 1992 to be exact. 

Wow, Gusties need 2 OTs to hold off a resurgent St. Olaf team last night.  Was not at that game but would like to hear from anyone who was there.  Meanwhile, CSB likewise holding off Hamline???  Not sure what's going on here.  Gusties will have Macalester at home tomorrow night (which knocked off St. Kate's last night) and then go up to St. Joe on Saturday for the first clash with CSB.  Gusties need to come out focused and prepared each time; especially against CSB as they've arguably been CSB's little you know what the last few years.

[gacbacker]

L.A. be glad you were not present for the GAC/St. Olaf women's game. Watched most of it online and it was ugly. Gusties made three, count 'em, three field goals in the second half. The only reason the Gusties didn't lose is because St. Olaf had their standard 33 turnovers and showed their typical poor shot selection by going 4-26 from the three point line.

I expect the Gusties to bounce back tonight at home against Macalester, but the chances they will beat St. Ben's up at St. Ben's is slim. And really, when you look at the teams on paper that's the way it should be. The only reason I would give the Gusties a chance is because Durbin's squad has looked disinterested early this season with three lackluster performances against teams they should be beating by double digits.

Gusties are definitely a playoff team, but they have a long ways to go if they are going to be a factor in those playoffs.