Accusing someone of gaslighting is a form of gaslighting. Cut it out. Changing the subject to men's vs women's officiating on the pretense that it's a bigger issue when it played no part in this thread until you suddenly dumped it here is more gaslighting. Now to get to the issue here, first let me clear this out of the way:
I agree that those were fouls, but I have zero interest in relitigating all the fouls. I think Cooke should have fouled out before halftime if the refs had done their jobs. In reality, had the refs actually done their jobs, Cooke and Boston would have sat with 2 fouls each before the end of the 1st quarter. What's more, I'm irritated when I hear an opposing coach say in pre-game interviews that their team will have to "play physical." Typically this means the bumping grabbing play we are both irritated by. We've heard this from coaches before almost every game this season. I hope that satisfies you.
Now to the real issue: your very own remark which I responded to above ("They obviously believed that rules of the sport allowed it") means they were playing in good faith. I don't think there's any other way to read your words. And here's the kicker: I think you were right to say this.
Now follow the implication of your own insight: players defend aggressively, with some amount of physical contact, and don't get whistled for it. Naturally they continue playing that way on the assumption that they are still within the rules. They even get rewarded for it, if it makes them more effective. All the while, the game gets a bit more bruising -- as many have observed about play this season -- and the style of play UConn favors is disadvantaged by this.
I imagine you're disappointed, even annoyed by this development. I know I am. Many folks in the BY think this is ruining the game. But the players aren't the villains here. The rules committee and the officials are. This is what I meant when I said above "I don't buy this easy equation between fouls and character." Many threads here have devolved into character critiques of players and I find this unpersuasive, perhaps even misguided. I'd like to see the refs be more attentive to the "freedom of movement" concept and rein in the physicality of the game. But I'm not going to blame the players for it.
And a finał coda: I'm not talking about flopping. This is a different issue and some teams really make a habit of this, teams we've had the misfortune of playing this season. I hate this, and I am disappointed in the players who do it and the coaches who encourage it. This is a dishonest practice, not just a matter of aggression-creep.
Actually you first raised the issue as to the officiating and I am not changing the issue but really expanding on it. You find an innocence in violating the rules but doing it in supposed good faith because it is not being called. To me, a foul is still a foul not matter the intent. It may make it non-intentional or non-flagrant but it is still a foul. We are not talking about aggressive defense on Lou, we are talking about bruising, holding, and grabbing the jersey. Those acts are always fouls per se, irrespective of being called. An experienced player like Cooke didn't think the rules changed, she thought she was getting away with it, which she was because of the way the game was being called.
I think it inappropriate to highlight Cooke's bloody nose which she brought on herself by encroaching in a fouling manner on Lou's space by body restricting her, when there is photographic evidence of Lou's bruises and Geno himself verified them, neither of which you mentioned. Is it just the refs fault because they were lax, weak or incompetent or was this a game plan? Believe what you want, we will never agree, but as I said before I am sure Cooke was told to play this way and knew what it entailed. It's what Nova and Providence did and it appeared to be effective so the probabilities are with my theory not yours.
I'm not equating fouls that are not intentional with poor character, and I don't know where this straw man came from. I never said it. I would equate intentional acts like sitting down purposely on Aaliyah's back in the Tennessee game with unacceptable and despicable behavior, like a punch to the face, that transcends the sport because it is outside the bounds of the game itself. It also was capable of producing a serious and career ending injury and thankfully did not.
I do agree with the problem with the refs but I think that playing in a way that violates the written rules of the game is wrong in and of itself. If I can get away with bruising you, am I justified in doing it? Am I relieved of responsibility? I think not.
I've already written to the NCAA rules committee about the physicality, lack of freedom of movement , the lack of enforcement of the rules by the referees and the gradual degradation of the sport as a result of it. It's all connected. In 2019, the Rules Committee for women's basketball adopted the new 3 point line as a way to "reduce physicality and promote freedom of movement". The NCAA was well aware of what was happening. Their new rule didn't work. Emphasizing freedom of movement in training and retraining of the officials would have worked much better as cited in the Bilas report a few years ago. And yes, the NCAA will bear ultimate responsibility in my mind if there is a catastrophic injury because a game gets out of hand and non-incidental physicality is not limited or prevented.
I find it interesting and sad that there is no flopping rule in women's basketball. The incidence of ACLs in women versus men is much greater as is the incidence of recurrence. It is the flopper who is protected in that foul, she is already on the floor, the offensive player is the one at risk of falling onto her in a twisting or other injury producing manner. To me, this is another example of the sport needing an independent study, a thorough review and the implementation of change that will benefit the game. If you think this is just about the last UCONN game, you are wrong. I have raised these issues on this site and elsewhere for a long time. Someone will raise them in a different forum one day and the NCAA will be on the receiving end of it for lack of oversight and supervision.
There is no need in my mind for further discussion. Let's see how Marquette defends Lou tonight. I hope that Big East officials will not allow the same nonsense that we saw on Sunday and that Marquette will not resort to the same tactics. Aggressive defense yes, "good faith" but knowing rule violations no.
