2019 NIT Plays (Video)

[JRutledge]

Play #1:



More to come if you make requests. I do not watch a lot of these games BTW.

Peace

[Raymond]

Pretty easy one right there.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Pretty easy one right there.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Called by one of my mentors.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Called by one of my mentors.



Peace

I knew that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bas2456]

IU alum here.

I don't understand the fouler's reaction. Dakich was right on, that foul has been called pretty consistently in games I've watched.

[chapmaja]

I agree it has been consistently called all year. The question is was this correct?

The question becomes when does he no longer have possession of the ball. I am waiting to see teams adjust to this being called this way and run a fake hand off and have the defender plow over or into the offensive player who still has possession.

As for this call, I think it was correct because I do thank the hand off had taken place already. This is evidenced by the Indiana players arm coming up as he makes contact. Intentional absolutely not, but a moving screen, yes.

Originally Posted by chapmaja

As for this call, I think it was correct because I do thank the hand off had taken place already. This is evidenced by the Indiana players arm coming up as he makes contact. Intentional absolutely not, but a moving screen, yes.

Whether the dribbler has handed the ball off before contact or not has no bearing on whether or not an illegal screen can be called. If you judge that the ball handler is screening an opponent and he is not doing so legally, it is an offensive foul. This is where the judgement comes in— same as determine whether an offensive player is cutting and causes incidental contact versus screening and causing illegal contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I agree it has been consistently called all year. The question is was this correct?

The question becomes when does he no longer have possession of the ball. I am waiting to see teams adjust to this being called this way and run a fake hand off and have the defender plow over or into the offensive player who still has possession.
...

It's the offensive player who is doing the plowing, so why would it matter if he had the ball or not? The defensive player is not displacing the offensive player.

[bucky]

Ball is irrelevant. Ball handler never came to a stop.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I agree it has been consistently called all year. The question is was this correct?

The question becomes when does he no longer have possession of the ball. I am waiting to see teams adjust to this being called this way and run a fake hand off and have the defender plow over or into the offensive player who still has possession.

As for this call, I think it was correct because I do thank the hand off had taken place already. This is evidenced by the Indiana players arm coming up as he makes contact. Intentional absolutely not, but a moving screen, yes.

Because the rules people have said this was illegal and wanted it called. It is that simple. It is considered an illegal screen and actually has for a few years now on video as an example of illegal screens.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I agree it has been consistently called all year. The question is was this correct?

The question becomes when does he no longer have possession of the ball. I am waiting to see teams adjust to this being called this way and run a fake hand off and have the defender plow over or into the offensive player who still has possession.

As for this call, I think it was correct because I do thank the hand off had taken place already. This is evidenced by the Indiana players arm coming up as he makes contact. Intentional absolutely not, but a moving screen, yes.

Man this is pretty off base and incorrect. None of this logic is factual at all. I would like to nominate this as today's "Fake Post"

[Pantherdreams]

Moderately related to post:

I tried to do a better job with the dribble handoffs this year as we are seeing more of them and I didn't think I had been reading them well before.

Overall the more you see them and the more you are anticipating the ball carrier becoming a screener and making sure they meet the requirements for each its ok. I little tougher in 2 person as you are officiating on ball d, trying to pick up in coming competitive matchup and the ball carriers feet but if the game has good flow and its not random I'm getting better.

This one seems pretty easy, as do the ones where they offense is clearly just washing out the intial defender.

2 areas I find difficult to adjudicate in these situations I would love assistance/feedback about:

1) If d team is switching everything. Then contact/moving elements from screener don't create disadvantage unless they are rolling through or washing out the switching defender. Would you call the act/contact the same regardless of how it was being defended?

2) As another poster brings up if the offense dribbles at the defense hesitates and the curler sprints by like the handoff if coming but the dribbler just keeps attacking in the direction of the running defender. There is some questionable time and space stuff that can happen and who is responsible for contact can get tricky if the play gets blown up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

2 areas I find difficult to adjudicate in these situations I would love assistance/feedback about:

1) If d team is switching everything. Then contact/moving elements from screener don't create disadvantage unless they are rolling through or washing out the switching defender. Would you call the act/contact the same regardless of how it was being defended?

I am not sure I understand the question honestly. I do call fouls on illegal screens when they displace, bump or prevent the defender (could be offensive player in some cases) from doing what they intend. That usually means that the screened player has to do something to get the call. If you stop or decide you have no intentions on going around or you accept the person is in front of you, I am not likely to make the call.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

2) As another poster brings up if the offense dribbles at the defense hesitates and the curler sprints by like the handoff if coming but the dribbler just keeps attacking in the direction of the running defender. There is some questionable time and space stuff that can happen and who is responsible for contact can get tricky if the play gets blown up.

Offensive players are often aware of where they are going. Defensive players often react. This is why we get paid the big bucks to make these decisions.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not sure I understand the question honestly. I do call fouls on illegal screens when they displace, bump or prevent the defender (could be offensive player in some cases) from doing what they intend. That usually means that the screened player has to do something to get the call. If you stop or decide you have no intentions on going around or you accept the person is in front of you, I am not likely to make the call.


Peace

Agreed I just don't want to get caught up with the tail wagging the dog situation. Where a coach starts asking about illegal screen calls which I say aren't getting because they switch and there is no contact, and then she comes back with they have to switch because they are setting illegal screens that aren't getting called.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Agreed I just don't want to get caught up with the tail wagging the dog situation. Where a coach starts asking about illegal screen calls which I say aren't getting because they switch and there is no contact, and then she comes back with they have to switch because they are setting illegal screens that aren't getting called.

If I see an illegal screen, I call them when I see them. Coaches crying for them does not make it illegal. Often their players give up or stop which caused there to be no displacement at all.

Peace