End of Wisconsin/WKU

[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.

[#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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by TriggerMN

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?

I think the leads view is of the back of the defender, I don't know that he has any chance to see any type of push off from his angle.