End of Wisconsin/WKU

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

Anytime a coach sets up a play to trick the officials, there should be skepticism

Say what? How is a screen to give the player doing the throw in an unimpeded long pass for a desperation shot designed to trick the officials?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

Anytime a coach sets up a play to trick the officials, there should be skepticism

I agree.

This wasn't that, though.

[CallMeMrRef]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Say what? How is a screen to give the player doing the throw in an unimpeded long pass for a desperation shot designed to trick the officials?

The screener took the contact will full intention of going to the floor. He was more like taking a charge to get a call than trying to free up the thrower in. If he really wanted to have that play set up as an effective screen he would have braced and held his ground, which certainly would have been a no call

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the play (I think).



Peace

If Trails doesn't bail out when A1 initially gets the ball, he could have stepped down on the drive and saw that B1 initiates illegal contact with his left arm prior to A1's push-off.

Center is calling what he sees, which is A1's push off. The Lead had no reason to come with his late whistle, he was straight-lined.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree. No time/distance was given. At the time the screen was set, the defender was moving and didn't take even one step before contact occurred. Screen was late and was, as a result, illegal. The instinct on the signal was correct.

These were my initial thoughts also, but I can understand if some don't see it that way.

[hamnegger]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This play could be several things, but cannot be a no call.

Why? he doesn't plow through the screener there is contact and he kind of awkwardly falls bc he didnt see the screen coming. It is close but the you could find fouls on either team or no call depending on how you interpret the screening rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

...

2. The lead also had a whistle on this play, and should have been given first crack at this play. To be fair, in the heat of the moment, you sometimes don't hear that second whistle, though. Heck, it's not like the lead didn't have a good look at the play, either...

The Lead has absolutely no view of this play (that's not a criticism, just how it played out), and should have had last crack on this play. The Trail took himself out of the play with his movement on A1's initial catch. The C had a wide open look as the play came towards him, so no problem what so ever with his whistle, but I'm sure he did not see the whole play when contact was first initiated. He saw only the obvious push off by A1.

If the Trail doesn't back out, and then steps down on the drive to see in between A1 and B1, he would have been in position to see the whole play, to include the initial contact.

[Nevadaref]

The first time that I saw this play was in an NCAA tournament game by Princeton. I believe it was during the 90s. It has been around at least 30 years.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The guy on or near the RA could be a secondary defender is what I'm saying. Wouldn't he be the C's responsibility?

...

Secondary defenders in the paint are the responsibility of the Lead. The Lead shouldn't be looking at the primary matchup on this play, he should be watching for possible secondary defenders coming from any direction.

[BryanV21]

I guess I am looking for reasons why the C shouldn't have this call, instead of reasons he should.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I guess I am looking for reasons why the C shouldn't have this call, instead of reasons he should.

College supervisors want active C's, especially on plays that curl or move towards them and the C has an open look.

Originally Posted by BigCat

It does not say "and the player does not see the screen." It says outside the visual field. 40-40-3 defines "within the visual field" as screening opponent from front or side. This screen was on the side. Within visual field by definition. 40-40-4 defines outside visual field as from behind.

It's not about whether player actually saw the screener or not.

What the hell kinda rule set has a 40-40-4 rule? Not NCAA-M, which we are using for this play.

Originally Posted by hamnegger

Why? he doesn't plow through the screener there is contact and he kind of awkwardly falls bc he didnt see the screen coming. It is close but the you could find fouls on either team or no call depending on how you interpret the screening rule.

Plowing through the screener is exactly what he does lol.

A to B movement is displacement.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by walt

At NCAA-W camps this past summer and at clinics this fall, I was told the only blind screen is the one set behind the player being screened. Side screens were to be considered in the visual field. I agree with others that said right to call a foul, wrong signal given at the spot. It is close, but from the video and watching it live, I thought the screener gave the defender time to stop and/or change direction. He didn't do that and pushed through the screen. Foul on Red.

A screen set to the side of the screened player is to considered in the visual field of the screened player has been part of the screening rule is over 55 years old.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

The NCAA book does not define visual field - but refers to it as blind. If the player didn't see it cause his eyes were fixed on the thrower, it was blind to him.

That is not what a blind screen is.

Blind is about what could/should be seeable, not what the defender actually sees. Blind screens are screens set directly behind the opponent where even looking both left and right it wouldn't be seen.