End of Wisconsin/WKU
 

Someone please post the video for discussion. Thanks.

Can you give specifics? Just the end of the game or what happened that you wanted?

Peace

It will be pretty obvious when you get there—but 2.0 left, Wisky inbounding

Here is the play:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tYBEl8-dv6A" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Correct call; wrong signal

I think this should be a no call. We have a legal screen and the player does not see the screen and runs through it.

“ A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, *provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.”

Is a side screen outside the visual field?

There's no really good signal here. This would be a perfect time to bird dog and point out to everyone who the foul is on. That would avoid all the confusion.

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

Why is this the right call? It seems like a blind screen and the WKY player does not seem to push his way through the screen - he just sort of falls into it blindly. The screen is effective. I don't see this as a foul. This is a no call to me. Maybe college looks at this differently?

In High School ball, would a better preliminary mechanic/signal be "push"?

The correct signal would be push/charge. That would make it clear the call was against the Red on this play.

Yes. And in NCAA.

And, if the defensive player had stopped on the initial contact, this would be a no call. Be he kept going through the screen -- foul.

I think the only issue is whether the screen on a moving player was set in time to give the player enough time / distance to avoid the screen -- and, if not, that would make it an illegal screen, not a "no call."

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.

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.