End of Wisconsin/WKU

[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.

[sdoebler]

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.

I'm not trying to get too nit picky because it is a difficult play to officiate. The screener is not 90º to the side he is slightly back by positioning. If you freeze the pay at :43 seconds the defender 100% can not see the screener when he makes contact.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

I'm not trying to get too nit picky because it is a difficult play to officiate. The screener is not 90º to the side he is slightly back by positioning. If you freeze the pay at :43 seconds the defender 100% can not see the screener when he makes contact.

I'm certain he didn't see him when contact was made...but had he turned his head he would have. This is a side screen not behind. Frankly, I could have lived with a block simply because the screener was barely touched and went down causing defender go down with him. But...this is one of the oldest plays in the game. defender has to be aware...

[walt]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

I'm not trying to get too nit picky because it is a difficult play to officiate. The screener is not 90º to the side he is slightly back by positioning. If you freeze the pay at :43 seconds the defender 100% can not see the screener when he makes contact.

Unless he is totally behind him, he is considered in within the visual field.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

I don't have my rule book handy

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

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

I have one thanks, just not in my work desk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

I have one thanks, just not in my work desk

The link lets you d/l it -- so, yes, you have one in your work desk.

[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

[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?

[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