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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Here is the play (I think).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dVwqhag4MKE" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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%.

I have one thanks, just not in my work desk

That play opened up to the C in exactly the area the C normally looks through (across the FT line area, even if it extends beyond his line on the floor a little).

The elbow push off that was called by the C likely would not have been visible to the lead. If the C lays off that, there is a non-insignificant chance the L makes the wrong call (correct from what he could have seen, however). When you have something like that, it is best to take the call rather than risk a partner, who couldn't see what you saw, has something else.

I can see what you're saying. Just seems odd the C was looking there.

This is also not a secondary defender play. This is a primary defender moving to the lane to stop the ball handler that is coming to him. I think it is a very good call and made by the right official. And it appears that the lead had the same thing if you just read how he was coming off the lane.

Peace

They teach the lead to make that call. If the play opens up to the C, they want them to get calls they see. The other players were doing nothing but standing. Because one of those players might have come over and he would have been able to know where the ball came from.

Peace

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

The guy on or near the RA could be a secondary defender is what I'm saying. Wouldn't he be the C's responsibility?

Imagining myself as the C in that play I figure to be looking at the matchup near the block first, as it's entirely possible for a shot to go up and those two jostling for rebounding position. At the same time keeping an eye on what the dribbler is doing. I wouldn't have been surprised at all if the dribbler decided to pass to his teammate who would be in front of me for a quick shot attempt.

I don't have strong feelings against the C taking this call, but this isn't a case where absolutely nothing his happening in his area and therefore it makes more sense for him to be looking across his primary to the other side.

And being clearly in the lead's area I'm giving him first crack at this call, instead of immediately making a call without any thought given to my partner (which is why I don't think he even knew the lead blew his whistle). And if the lead was straightlined then why did he blow his whistle in the first place?

NFHS language not NCAA
 

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

His only responsibility? No.

OK, but not seeing your point here. The matchups on the C's side were just standing. They were not moving or cutting to the basket.

Well, absolutely nothing was happening in his area. Players were just standing and watching. You do not need to be hawking players just standing. When I say competitive match-up, usually that means they are trying to set screens, cut or working around in the post for the ball. Players that stand do not need any extra attention.

Well, this is not a play where they have the same angle. So the "first crack" to me suggests they see the same thing. They are not looking at the same thing, the C has an open look on the play and makes a call based on that open look. If I was the L, I would be fine with his whistle and call. We are a team, not individuals working the game.

Peace

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?

I agree.

This wasn't that, though.

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

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.

These were my initial thoughts also, but I can understand if some don't see it that way.

Why? he doesn't plow through the screener there is contact and he kind of awkwardly falls bc he didnt see the screen coming. It is close but the you could find fouls on either team or no call depending on how you interpret the screening rule.

The Lead has absolutely no view of this play (that's not a criticism, just how it played out), and should have had last crack on this play. The Trail took himself out of the play with his movement on A1's initial catch. The C had a wide open look as the play came towards him, so no problem what so ever with his whistle, but I'm sure he did not see the whole play when contact was first initiated. He saw only the obvious push off by A1.

If the Trail doesn't back out, and then steps down on the drive to see in between A1 and B1, he would have been in position to see the whole play, to include the initial contact.

The first time that I saw this play was in an NCAA tournament game by Princeton. I believe it was during the 90s. It has been around at least 30 years.

Secondary defenders in the paint are the responsibility of the Lead. The Lead shouldn't be looking at the primary matchup on this play, he should be watching for possible secondary defenders coming from any direction.

I guess I am looking for reasons why the C shouldn't have this call, instead of reasons he should.

College supervisors want active C's, especially on plays that curl or move towards them and the C has an open look.

What the hell kinda rule set has a 40-40-4 rule? Not NCAA-M, which we are using for this play.

Plowing through the screener is exactly what he does lol.

A to B movement is displacement.

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.

That is not what a blind screen is.

Blind is about what could/should be seeable, not what the defender actually sees. Blind screens are screens set directly behind the opponent where even looking both left and right it wouldn't be seen.

The defender is moving and doesn't even get one full step from when the screen is set to contact. It is hard for me to see that as enough time and distance to avoid.

The time and distance logic is flawed here. The offensive player is transitioning from offense to defense and just stops in their path. There is no way in heck the time and distance logic is meant to be applied here, nor do I think it should.

this would mean that an offensive player would have to keep running to "avoid" any collision with the defense and puts ALL the onus on the offensive player.

I think you thought you were replying to the other thread with a different screen situation (NCAAW with Texas vs Tennessee, https://forum.officiating.com/basket...l-screens.html)

you are 100% right. too many similar topics.

WKU head coach says he received a call from the Big Ten saying the call was incorrect and that the official was fined and suspended. Is it normal for the conference to call a non-conference school?

I don't think college officials can be fined.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Even if they could, I don't think they'd be fined for getting a judgment call wrong. They could have games taken away, which could be considered a fine by some.