ACC Final -- BC v. UNC High Noon Sunday

[8meterPA]

Four shots by UNC in the second half, one in the fourth quarter.

I thought Boston’s initial defensive game plan was dumb, face guarding Godine. She’s playing very well for a freshman, but I don’t think she warrants a face card. Boston has a lot of good 1 v. 1 defenders who could have shut her down, and did later.

Carolina was able to pick apart the Boston defense when they were playing 6 v. 6.

Once Boston dropped the face guard defense, their defensive play picked up several notches.

Having said all that, I think Jen Kent is an excellent defensive coach.

to me - as has happened throughout the season with UNC. no leadership stepping up to be the go-to person. Clearly thats not Wurtzburger although this was supposed to be her team with year with the loss of dominant players last year. tough to rely on freshmen. 10 TOs in 2nd half is ridiculous. Seemed like a total team meltdown.

UNC took advantage of the long to no slide early, especially on that alley. I thought FG was unnecessary too, and dug BC in a hole. AWW also made a change at the draw and put in Herod, and HS on the circle. I know they are limiting her minutes but HS is just so vital in the middle of the field.
CW was never going to be a dominant offensive force or creator on her own, IMO.

imo, CW is much more effective as a 3rd or 4th choice on offense rather than "the person"

[Laxfan500]

terrible non-call. Playing defense w/o a stick?

big miss by the interviewer of Jenny Levy right after half. As Levy prattled on about enforcing teh rules, the announcer should have asked Levy about her own player playing defense on the shooter without her stick.

I can do without the sermon from Levy on the rules at half. Especially in a game where the calls were going there way.

Congrats to BC. Tremendous adjustments and to win their first ACC title after losing North is a great program achievement!

Honestly think it had more to do with what UNC lost this year than BC losing North. The big 3 from BC couldn't get it done , neither could North, but the common denominator of the past 6 year's title success was that core group of players for UNC, including Hoeg, McCool, etc and the 5th year kids that graduated last May.

[user1020]

Four shots by UNC in the second half, one in the fourth quarter.

I thought Boston’s initial defensive game plan was dumb, face guarding Godine. She’s playing very well for a freshman, but I don’t think she warrants a face card. Boston has a lot of good 1 v. 1 defenders who could have shut her down, and did later.

Carolina was able to pick apart the Boston defense when they were playing 6 v. 6.

Once Boston dropped the face guard defense, their defensive play picked up several notches.

Having said all that, I think Jen Kent is an excellent defensive coach.

to me - as has happened throughout the season with UNC. no leadership stepping up to be the go-to person. Clearly thats not Wurtzburger although this was supposed to be her team with year with the loss of dominant players last year. tough to rely on freshmen. 10 TOs in 2nd half is ridiculous. Seemed like a total team meltdown.

UNC took advantage of the long to no slide early, especially on that alley. I thought FG was unnecessary too, and dug BC in a hole. AWW also made a change at the draw and put in Herod, and HS on the circle. I know they are limiting her minutes but HS is just so vital in the middle of the field.
CW was never going to be a dominant offensive force or creator on her own, IMO.

imo, CW is much more effective as a 3rd or 4th choice on offense rather than "the person"

I agree. Some people are better as more supporting roles rather than leader roles. Also, playing with better players make you a better player. Not that UNC had bad players this year, but playing with JO, AM, and others definitely makes you a better player.

[user1020]

Four shots by UNC in the second half, one in the fourth quarter.

I thought Boston’s initial defensive game plan was dumb, face guarding Godine. She’s playing very well for a freshman, but I don’t think she warrants a face card. Boston has a lot of good 1 v. 1 defenders who could have shut her down, and did later.

Carolina was able to pick apart the Boston defense when they were playing 6 v. 6.

Once Boston dropped the face guard defense, their defensive play picked up several notches.

Having said all that, I think Jen Kent is an excellent defensive coach.

to me - as has happened throughout the season with UNC. no leadership stepping up to be the go-to person. Clearly thats not Wurtzburger although this was supposed to be her team with year with the loss of dominant players last year. tough to rely on freshmen. 10 TOs in 2nd half is ridiculous. Seemed like a total team meltdown.

UNC took advantage of the long to no slide early, especially on that alley. I thought FG was unnecessary too, and dug BC in a hole. AWW also made a change at the draw and put in Herod, and HS on the circle. I know they are limiting her minutes but HS is just so vital in the middle of the field.
CW was never going to be a dominant offensive force or creator on her own, IMO.

imo, CW is much more effective as a 3rd or 4th choice on offense rather than "the person"

I agree. Some people are better as more supporting roles rather than leader roles. Also, playing with better players make you a better player. Not that UNC has bad players this year, but playing with JO, AM, and others definitely makes you a better player.

[watcherinthewoods]

Four shots by UNC in the second half, one in the fourth quarter.

I thought Boston’s initial defensive game plan was dumb, face guarding Godine. She’s playing very well for a freshman, but I don’t think she warrants a face card. Boston has a lot of good 1 v. 1 defenders who could have shut her down, and did later.

Carolina was able to pick apart the Boston defense when they were playing 6 v. 6.

Once Boston dropped the face guard defense, their defensive play picked up several notches.

Having said all that, I think Jen Kent is an excellent defensive coach.

I agree ... did you note that Scales was playing almost a rover for some sets? Following ball like a backer, it seemed like when certain UNC players had the ball. She would drop off and pick up the player furthest from the ball when UNC would move it. Very interesting scheme.

I want to know how Dolce can be the Tourney MVP when she had 2 saves and 9 goals allowed? Credit BC defense for only allowing 15 shots, which absolutely was the key to the win, but the goalie was COLD (as someone else has already pointed out). Sincerely. someone please explain this to me.

[Fischer]

Four shots by UNC in the second half, one in the fourth quarter.

I thought Boston’s initial defensive game plan was dumb, face guarding Godine. She’s playing very well for a freshman, but I don’t think she warrants a face card. Boston has a lot of good 1 v. 1 defenders who could have shut her down, and did later.

Carolina was able to pick apart the Boston defense when they were playing 6 v. 6.

Once Boston dropped the face guard defense, their defensive play picked up several notches.

Having said all that, I think Jen Kent is an excellent defensive coach.

I agree ... did you note that Scales was playing almost a rover for some sets? Following ball like a backer, it seemed like when certain UNC players had the ball. She would drop off and pick up the player furthest from the ball when UNC would move it. Very interesting scheme.

I want to know how Dolce can be the Tourney MVP when she had 2 saves and 9 goals allowed? Credit BC defense for only allowing 15 shots, which absolutely was the key to the win, but the goalie was COLD (as someone else has already pointed out). Sincerely. someone please explain this to me.

Agree here Hunter Roman made some key defensive plays in this game She came in clutch

[Lax101]

MVP to Dolce was for the tournament, not just the final game. She played great vs Duke and ND and I think it represented that the entire defense (middies and true defenders) was the MVP for the tournament. To give up an average of 7 goals to 3 top ACC teams was quite remarkable Was truly a team effort. In the first 2 games you will also see tons of caused turnovers by the defense and not to many great looks at the cage by the opposing team. Was fun watching the 7 person defense gel the way it did.

[watcherinthewoods]

MVP to Dolce was for the tournament, not just the final game. She played great vs Duke and ND and I think it represented that the entire defense (middies and true defenders) was the MVP for the tournament. To give up an average of 7 goals to 3 top ACC teams was quite remarkable Was truly a team effort. In the first 2 games you will also see tons of caused turnovers by the defense and not to many great looks at the cage by the opposing team. Was fun watching the 7 person defense gel the way it did.

Noted and thanks for the background. Limiting the # of shots and quality looks is a recipe for winning games, to be sure. See Denver, Pios.

[intheknow247]

They have GOT to fix the replay rules. Maybe a 2 minute max stoppage. That was 5 minutes. Too easy to change the channel…

This was brutal - and when BC did score a goal that AWW challenged, they botched it and got it wrong by saying no goal when it clearly crossed goal line, hit inside pipe, and came back out.

Refs were struggling, commentators in booth were struggling...needs some tweaks for sure.

[njbill]

Yes, MVP is for the entire tourney, but I wouldn't say Dolce played great against Duke. 6 saves and 9 GAs. My recollection of the game is that she played OK even though her save % (.400) was not good.

She absolutely played great against Notre Dame. Best I have ever seen her play, HS or college.

She played poorly against UNC. Indisputably.

As a BC insider told me last year, she is streaky, which conforms exactly to what I have seen of her in HS and college. First time I ever saw her, she was an absolute brick wall in the first half. Pretty pedestrian in the second. Saw her get pulled in two different HS games.

All in all, I will say she seems to be playing a little better in college than at least what I saw of her in HS. And that is pretty remarkable because going from even top HS level to top D1 level for goalies is really hard.

Of course, she has that very good BC defense playing in front of her which is a big help. Megan Taylor was a great goalie, but she, too, benefited from playing behind a great defense.

[njbill]

This was brutal - and when BC did score a goal that AWW challenged, they botched it and got it wrong by saying no goal when it clearly crossed goal line, hit inside pipe, and came back out.

Refs were struggling, commentators in booth were struggling...needs some tweaks for sure.

I didn't think it was clear from the replays we, the viewers, saw. Not clear enough to overturn the call on the field. The booth kept saying they saw the ball across the line, which would be correct if the ball was on the ground. It looked to me like the ball may have been several inches off the ground, in which case the replay could have created the illusion the ball was across the line when, in fact, it hadn't crossed, but was simply, say, six inches in the air and an inch or two in front of the line. I thought that angle was inconclusive as to whether the ball crossed the line.

I'm skeptical of the comments that the refs see more replay angles than the viewers. The cameras are all controlled by the TV people. One would think they would show the best angle or angles. The refs probably can stop, rewind, and advance the video better than we can at home (speaking for myself at least).

They seemed to have a number of cameras at the game. Why not put two directly on each goal line and zoom in when a shot is taken? Or a camera in the back of the net like in ice hockey (apologies to Boston fans for mentioning ice hockey today .)

[intheknow247]

This was brutal - and when BC did score a goal that AWW challenged, they botched it and got it wrong by saying no goal when it clearly crossed goal line, hit inside pipe, and came back out.

Refs were struggling, commentators in booth were struggling...needs some tweaks for sure.

I didn't think it was clear from the replays we, the viewers, saw. Not clear enough to overturn the call on the field. The booth kept saying they saw the ball across the line, which would be correct if the ball was on the ground. It looked to me like the ball may have been several inches off the ground, in which case the replay could have created the illusion the ball was across the line when, in fact, it hadn't crossed, but was simply, say, six inches in the air and an inch or two in front of the line. I thought that angle was inconclusive as to whether the ball crossed the line.

I'm skeptical of the comments that the refs see more replay angles than the viewers. The cameras are all controlled by the TV people. One would think they would show the best angle or angles. The refs probably can stop, rewind, and advance the video better than we can at home (speaking for myself at least).

They seemed to have a number of cameras at the game. Why not put two directly on each goal line and zoom in when a shot is taken? Or a camera in the back of the net like in ice hockey (apologies to Boston fans for mentioning ice hockey today .)

I would go back and watch that NJB - ball touches inside pipe and ripples the net slightly. The only way a ball touches inside pipe (and takes a bounce back out that is very improbable, but possible) is to cross goal line.

Also, the DV Sport setup is a camera based replay and feedback software that provides different cameras and angles in addition to the provider's game feeds.

[njbill]

Thanks for the comment. Don't recall your details, but you may be right. Not interested enough to go back and watch. Just saying what I thought at the time. Seemed to me the booth's comments were possibly off-base for the reasons I mentioned. Definitely seemed inconclusive to me.

If, in fact, the refs saw angles the viewers didn't, doesn't that suggest maybe they saw something more conclusive than what we the viewers saw in terms of goal/no goal?

If the replay angles are available, i.e., exist, I sure think the TV should show them. Why not? Doesn't make sense to me.

[@inthe8m]

Thanks for the comment. Don't recall your details, but you may be right. Not interested enough to go back and watch. Just saying what I thought at the time. Seemed to me the booth's comments were possibly off-base for the reasons I mentioned. Definitely seemed inconclusive to me.

If, in fact, the refs saw angles the viewers didn't, doesn't that suggest maybe they saw something more conclusive than what we the viewers saw in terms of goal/no goal?

If the replay angles are available, i.e., exist, I sure think the TV should show them. Why not? Doesn't make sense to me.

It definitely was inconclusive. IF the replay going to be used more in the future, there have to be more cameras and better camera angles.

[Lax101]

Going back to the goalie conversation. BC is finally getting credit for having a very good, and perhaps even an exceptional 7 person team defense. This is due in part to much better goalie play than they have had the past few years. RH was great in some games but Shea has been better and more consistent. Is it more the defense making Shea's job easy or more Shea making the defense look good. I tend to think it is more the defense. They are a talented and disrupted group that seems to be getting better and better. And this is without #28 playing the past 6 games. That said, Shea is makng the saves she should make and she is occassionally making the great save at the right time which is exactly what you want as a team.

[njbill]

IF the replay going to be used more in the future, there have to be more cameras and better camera angles.

I agree.

They also have to show the TV audience all of the replays/angles the officials see when they are reviewing a call. If they don't, they run the risk of alienating the audience. Suppose the refs call no goal on the field. TV replays make it look like they made the correct call. But the super secret replays only the refs see make it clear a goal was scored. After review, the refs announce the goal counts. Even our most genteel posters (do we have any?) would raise Holy Hell because from what they saw, it didn't look like a goal.

[Brownlax]

IF the replay going to be used more in the future, there have to be more cameras and better camera angles.

I agree.

They also have to show the TV audience all of the replays/angles the officials see when they are reviewing a call. If they don't, they run the risk of alienating the audience. Suppose the refs call no goal on the field. TV replays make it look like they made the correct call. But the super secret replays only the refs see make it clear a goal was scored. After review, the refs announce the goal counts. Even our most genteel posters (do we have any?) would raise Holy Hell because from what they saw, it didn't look like a goal.

Some of you are asking for more cameras and better camera angles. That’s a long way off for the majority of schools. We are lucky enough to have as many games broadcast on ESPN, ACC Network and Big Ten. However only the top broadcasts have multiple camera angles. Having watched a ton of games this year, many schools only have two camera angles.

It’s going to be hard to make this a key part of the sport if it’s not even for all of the schools.

[njbill]

Good points.

In this experimental year, the “experiment” has pointed out some deficiencies in the system. I’m not 100% convinced they will continue with replays, but we shall see.

If they do, then you need to have good cameras on the goal circle since that seems to be where most of the challenged calls are made.

And you need to have reasonably equivalent camera coverage in all games. Otherwise, the replay process is unfair.

Different point, but you need to show the audience everything the officials see. Can’t be hard to do.