25-25 at the half. Although shooting only 36% and slightly out rebounded, Harvard played very aggressive and effective defense and led the entire 1H until the final minute. Tigers had 12 turnovers in 1H and seemed a little frantic. This game could easily go down to the wire.
On to OT @ 64-64, as Chea hits a 3 to tie with the clock at 0.4 seconds after Harvard scored to take the lead wth 4.5 seconds to go.
Tigers win by 3 in OT. A barnburner.
Ridiculous. The play set up for Fadima at 4.9 seconds did not look like it would succeed, so they were lucky that Harvard knocked it out of bounds. That allowed them to run the play for Chea and St. Rose’s screen (which could have been called against her as a moving screen) allowed Ashley to have the wide open shot.
I guess I’m mostly alone in this line of thinking but for the life of me, I will never understand why Harvard didn’t foul on the Tigers’ last possession. Don’t they remember what happened last year? Just plaindumbinmyopinion.
2 Likes
They would have had to commit the foul before the ball was inbounded. The way the play worked, Fadima did not inbound it until Ashley was at her shooting spot all alone with no one in a position to foul her. The stagger screen set by Toby and Maddie worked perfectly. If a Harvard player tackled Ashley before the ball was inbounded, it’s a dead ball foul and I think it would probably be a technical foul, in which case if the person who shot the foul shots made them, it would have been 64-63, and Princeton would have gotten the ball back in exactly the same position they were in prior to the foul - 2.4 seconds left. If Harvard fouled again, more technical free throws. What surprised me, though, was that Abigail Wright and Katie Krupa were standing in the center of the lane like they were protecting the rim. They should all have been spaced out on the three-point line to harass the possible shooters. Ashley should not have been so wide open.
1 Like
I agree with what you say but I thought Harvard’s defensive alignment was God awful. They lined up with not one, but two defenders in the paint. Why? Everyone in the building knew the Tigers HAD to have a three. They were not going down low for a shot. Nweke and St. Rose were the Tigers setting the double screen for Chea. When Nweke came off her screen she went down the lane, guarded by one of the defenders stationed in the paint. Useless. When St. Rose came off her screen, she drifted out to the top of the key. It looked as though the other defender stationed in the paint started to go out to guard her but realized she’d be too late. The double screen allowed Chea to get free and Harvard had the look of where did she come from? Like they never expected Chea to take that shot. No one except the defender that was double screened ever made a move to try and guard Chea and she had no chance. It was a ridiculously good shot under the circumstances. Why Harvard had anyone set up inside the arc is beyond me. In my opinion, they all should have been situated on the three-point line so that they could have covered anyone, anywhere on the floor. Beyond the arc that is.
That said, the Tigers didn’t exactly look like a top 20 team yesterday. Horrible offense in the first half and way too many turnovers. Their heart, grit and never say die attitude however, looked like a top 5 team. It’s amazing how they never panic and always believe in each other no matter how dire the situation. This wasn’t quite as incredible as the George Mason comeback, but it wasn’t far behind. Harvard needs help now. This win puts a lot more pressure on Columbia in two weeks. If the Tigers win that one it will all but clinch at least a tie for the league title and if the tie breaker is still determined by Net rankings, it will give them the number one seed.
1 Like
Agreed. I wish the women could give the men an attitude transfusion. Women’s team is generally as “young” as the men’s team.
The women are a MUCH more experienced team. The four juniors all played meaningful minutes
last year and St. Rose has started her whole career.
You are right. But the men’s team could still learn from them.
In this spot, the defense has exactly one job: take away any 3, especially a clean 3. You can live with a 2, even a fast 2, because it doesn’t beat you. Protecting the rim is an incorrect defensive call: station bodies in passing lanes to disrupt the throw-in, switch everything, forcing a catch inside the arc, and—if needed—foul immediately on the catch to prevent a 3-point attempt (without putting the shooter in the act)
You may foul a cutter before the ball is inbounded (that’s a dead-ball personal foul), but you may not foul the thrower-in until the pass is released. Illegal contact on the thrower-in before release is penalized as a technical foul. (That’s the old “foul the inbounder” Carril tried vs. Nova)
A pre-inbound “impede” on an offensive player is not automatically a technical. If it’s a normal hold/push, it’s typically a common personal foul (dead ball). If it’s excessive or clearly non-basketball (your “tackle” scenario), that’s where officials can go intentional/flagrant, which is a much bigger penalty than a common foul.
1 Like
I certainly agree with that.
Do you think Carla watches the mens games live or on tape, and kinda rolls her eyes?
1 Like
While I expect she and Mitch get along fine, I doubt she sees much value in watching the men.