End of Wisconsin/WKU

[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.

[walt]

Correct but that is where the judgment piece comes in. From the clip, the official obviously ruled the player being screened within his visual field had a chance to stop or change direction and instead pushed through the screen.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

I don't have my rule book handy

https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...retations.aspx

[CallMeMrRef]

Originally Posted by 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.

The severe language is in the NHFS book, the NCAA language only refers to inadvertent contact, which shall be incidental. IMO the defenders visual field is directly ahead at the thrower-in. He did not see the defender, his contact was inadvertent, therefore incidental - no call.

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.

If this screen happened on the playing court, what happened? The screener set a screen which separated his defender from his teammate. The screen was successful and the screened defender did not do anything wrong. Play on.

Lastly, we usually call the foul on the defender being screened when we can determine that he peaked at the screen and decided to plow through it anyway. I don't see that as the case in this play.

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

[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

[TriggerMN]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the play (I think).



Peace

Yes, this is the play, thank you.

This one is really tight. I'm wondering if folks think that the C should be the primary calling official on this play. The contact occurred outside the lane on the side of the floor opposite the C. On one hand the play seems to be opening up to him, but is this too far to reach as the primary whistle?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the play (I think).



Peace

1. Why is the center calling this? He has an offensive player on the block in his primary surrounded by two defenders, and also has another offensive player in his primary that could take a quick pass and shot. The center should be ready to pick up the secondary defender around the RA should the dribbler had gotten around his primary defender.

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.

3. I honestly can't tell if it's a block or a charge. At first I thought the defender moved into the dribbler as the dribbler was trying to drive around him, thus a "block" call. But then I thought the defender beat the dribbler to the spot of contact, after having gained LGP, thus a "charge" call. I'm leaning "charge", but not 100%.

[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.