End of Wisconsin/WKU

[Smitty]

It looks like upon initial contact, the screener fell and then the defender tripped over him and fell on top of him. I just don't see it. When I first saw it I didn't think the screener gave him enough time/distance and I thought the official was calling the illegal screen. It wasn't until I watched a second time that I realized he called the foul on the defender. I still kind of think the screen wasn't legal. It's close.

[RedAndWhiteRef]

Nothing about this makes any sense at all. Are we sure the Wisconsin player's left foot wasn't on the line? That wouldn't constitute legal position.

I've got nothing here either. I've never understood the "if you have a player on the ground, you have to have a whistle" theory. No, if you have a player on the ground you need to determine WHY he's on the ground and then you might have a whistle from there.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by RedAndWhiteRef

Nothing about this makes any sense at all. Are we sure the Wisconsin player's left foot wasn't on the line? That wouldn't constitute legal position.

Should have used a push signal but the right call.

This has to do in relation to guarding position and not screening principles I believe (I have to find my rule book to confirm). Although I don't think the player was on the line anyway.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

Should have used a push signal but the right call.

This has to do in relation to guarding position and not screening principles I believe (I have to find my rule book to confirm). Although I don't think the player was on the line anyway.

Screeners cannot be OOB when setting a screen. It was a major rule change this year.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by deecee

Should have used a push signal but the right call.

This has to do in relation to guarding position and not screening principles I believe (I have to find my rule book to confirm). Although I don't think the player was on the line anyway.

The "inbound" requirement was added to screening this year, to make it cinsistent with the same requirement for LGP

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The "inbound" requirement was added to screening this year, to make it cinsistent with the same requirement for LGP

Good to know, since I retired this summer. Don't have the new rulebook.

[TriggerMN]

In my opinion, the call was 100% correct, the signal was just wrong. Screener gave time and distance, and was completely inbounds. Defense went right through the screener.

Rut, can you find another clip from this game? The same Wisconsin player drew a PC foul in the lane with approximately 45-50 seconds remaining in the game that was called by the C opposite. I think that play could warrant a discussion as well.

[sdoebler]

I don't have my rule book handy but there is a line in screens that says if the screener is in legal position to screen and the player does not see the screen and runs into the screener the contact can be severe and should be a no call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by TriggerMN

Rut, can you find another clip from this game? The same Wisconsin player drew a PC foul in the lane with approximately 45-50 seconds remaining in the game that was called by the C opposite. I think that play could warrant a discussion as well.

Here is the play (I think).



Peace

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by RedAndWhiteRef

I've never understood the "if you have a player on the ground, you have to have a whistle" theory. No, if you have a player on the ground you need to determine WHY he's on the ground and then you might have a whistle from there.

Same here. Yet, I often hear it espoused several times per year during my h.s. pre-game discussions.

I'm only interested in the "why", but a lot of guys seem to feel obligated to put a whistle on anything that results in a player(s) hitting the deck.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RedAndWhiteRef

Nothing about this makes any sense at all. Are we sure the Wisconsin player's left foot wasn't on the line? That wouldn't constitute legal position.

I've got nothing here either. I've never understood the "if you have a player on the ground, you have to have a whistle" theory. No, if you have a player on the ground you need to determine WHY he's on the ground and then you might have a whistle from there.

It did not look like it was touching the line at all to me. Looked at that a few times to be sure. Nothing in the video said he was on the line.

Peace

[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.

[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 Smitty

It looks like upon initial contact, the screener fell and then the defender tripped over him and fell on top of him. I just don't see it. When I first saw it I didn't think the screener gave him enough time/distance and I thought the official was calling the illegal screen. It wasn't until I watched a second time that I realized he called the foul on the defender. I still kind of think the screen wasn't legal. It's close.

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.

[Rich]

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.

Frankly, this is where I was on this play until I saw an end line view of it.

Then when I saw the end line view I saw the Wisconsin player crumble to the ground with virtually no contact and the WKU player trip over him.