NCAA Tourn Friday March 24 video requests

JRutledge

Random Plays from Wisconsin vs. Florida Game

Play #1: Goaltending play

Play #2: Pass off screen

Play #3: Pass and crash play

Play #4: Legal spin move?

Peace

RefRich

JRutledge wrote
Random Plays from Wisconsin vs. Florida Game

Play #1: Goaltending play

Play #2: Pass off screen

Play #3: Pass and crash play

Play #4: Legal spin move?

Peace

Play#1 - good call, on the way down
Play#2 - There was no screen, Florida play just ran into the Wisconsin player. If the player is running around a player do you call a foul on the guy holding the ball?
Play#3 - The lead wanted this to be offensive in a bad way but did a great job of holding off his call because the center was wrong.
Play#4 - Nice spin move, looked good

JRutledge

RefRich wrote
Play#2 - There was no screen, Florida play just ran into the Wisconsin player. If the player is running around a player do you call a foul on the guy holding the ball?

It is a screen by rule and interpretation. He passes off the ball so he is subjected to some screening rules. But he does not turn into the screened player and gives enough time and distance. It is not unusual in these pass off situations to have the ball handler soon to not be ball handler to kind of cause contact with the defender coming at them. This IMO was totally legal and he was turning away from contact. If turning toward contact, then we might have had a different result.

Peace

RefRich

JRutledge wrote
It is a screen by rule and interpretation. He passes off the ball so he is subjected to some screening rules. But he does not turn into the screened player and gives enough time and distance. It is not unusual in these pass off situations to have the ball handler soon to not be ball handler to kind of cause contact with the defender coming at them. This IMO was totally legal and he was turning away from contact. If turning toward contact, then we might have had a different result.

Peace

He was going to pass off the ball but was run into by the Florida player first. Therefore there is no attempted screen. You can't penalize him because of what he was going to do but by what the defender did prior to any handoff.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of the rule.

JRutledge

RefRich wrote
He was going to pass off the ball but was run into by the Florida player first. Therefore there is no attempted screen. You can't penalize him because of what he was going to do but by what the defender did prior to any handoff.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of the rule.

I did not say anything about penalizing him if he was legal as he was in this play. But handoff screens are common and usually result in nothing, this was just an example. But it is a screen a the same rules apply. If he had kept coming forward and knocked down the defender, then I would have advocated for a foul. And that is why I think they showed a replay of the situation to show that the Wisconsin player was legal.

Peace

RefRich

JRutledge wrote
I did not say anything about penalizing him if he was legal as he was in this play. But handoff screens are common and usually result in nothing, this was just an example. But it is a screen a the same rules apply. If he had kept coming forward and knocked down the defender, then I would have advocated for a foul. And that is why I think they showed a replay of the situation to show that the Wisconsin player was legal.

Peace

Got it, thanks for the explanation.

JRutledge

RefRich wrote
Got it, thanks for the explanation.

Np.

Peace

Camron Rust

RefRich wrote
He was going to pass off the ball but was run into by the Florida player first. Therefore there is no attempted screen. You can't penalize him because of what he was going to do but by what the defender did prior to any handoff.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of the rule.

Whether he has the ball or not, it is still a screen. That said, it was a legal screen....good no call.

thedewed

JRutledge wrote

Peace

there are plays where b/c opportunities should be no calls, and this is one of them. if the defender is there and set in time, but the ballhandler gets his torso past, then it can be a no call. You sure shouldn't call a block, as a defender that is set in legal guarding position has no obligation to move out of the way. This particular play that is best result, next best would be charge.

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
Np.

Young guns, like JRutledge, say "No problem". Old farts like me, say, "You're welcome". Ain't it funny how language changes right before our eyes (or our ears)?

Note: Please don't tell my Mom, or Mr. Baumgartner, my high school sophomore English teacher, that I used "ain't" in a sentence.

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
Young guns, like JRutledge, say "No problem". Old farts like me, say, "You're welcome". Ain't it funny how language changes right before our eyes (or our ears)?

Note: Please don't tell my Mom, or Mr. Baumgartner, my high school sophomore English teacher, that I used "ain't" in a sentence.

Nomination for the "Doing Too Much" Countdown!!!

Peace

SC Official

thedewed wrote
there are plays where b/c opportunities should be no calls, and this is one of them. if the defender is there and set in time, but the ballhandler gets his torso past, then it can be a no call. You sure shouldn't call a block, as a defender that is set in legal guarding position has no obligation to move out of the way. This particular play that is best result, next best would be charge.

I stopped reading when I saw this word.

Badgerfan2

JRutledge wrote
Specific time please. That these are too general.

Peace

Sorry about that. Looks like you've already got two of them. The first one was called an offensive foul on Nigel Hayes at 4:25 of the first half.

One other one - Khalil Iverson #21 appears to be tripped by #13 of florida, 9:34 wnd half Ball called out of bounds. If it is incidental is it not still a foul?

JRutledge

Badgerfan2 wrote
Sorry about that. Looks like you've already got two of them. The first one was called an offensive foul on Nigel Hayes at 4:25 of the first half.

I was watching the game and got this play. I will post it later.

Badgerfan2 wrote
One other one - Khalil Iverson #21 appears to be tripped by #13 of florida, 9:34 wnd half Ball called out of bounds. If it is incidental is it not still a foul?

I did not think this was a foul. If the contact in incidental, that means it is not a foul. That is what incidental contact actually means.

Peace

JRutledge

Badgerfan2 wrote
Sorry about that. Looks like you've already got two of them. The first one was called an offensive foul on Nigel Hayes at 4:25 of the first half.

Peace

JRutledge

Play #7:

Play #8:

Play #9

Play #10

Peace

JRutledge

Badgerfan2 wrote
Khalil Iverson #21 appears to be tripped by #13 of florida, 9:34 wnd half Ball called out of bounds. If it is incidental is it not still a foul?

Peace

ODog

Badgerfan2 wrote
One other one - Khalil Iverson #21 appears to be tripped by #13 of florida, 9:34 wnd half Ball called out of bounds.

It's amazing how fandom can cause people to hallucinate.

He tripped ... but he wasn't tripped. Falling down is falling down.

« Previous Page