Kim Mulkey at it again

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm actually mad at myself because this (below) got lost in the shuffle.







Discussion?

I responded to that post. Go ahead put in your two cents.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Did the official stop a Kentucky fast break to charge the technical foul?

Originally Posted by Raymond

I responded to that post.

I can't find it on the Forum, maybe on a different site, or maybe I'm not looking hard enough?

Also, like Raymond and bob jenkins, I'm interested in discussing the dead ball collision in the lane.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Also, like Raymond and bob jenkins, I'm interested in discussing the dead ball collision in the lane.

White defender in the lane attempts to set a screen on black 44, perhaps in an attempt to draw a team control foul. If play was still live, make your judgment regarding block/charge/no call, but I feel like she's still moving toward the opponent at the time of contact. Since the ball is dead due to the TF, this is nothing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Altor

Since the ball is dead due to the TF, this is nothing ...

... unless (high school rules) the illegal contact is intentional or flagrant.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... unless (high school rules) the illegal contact is intentional or flagrant.

In regards to this play, it is neither of those, as Altor is pointing out.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can't find it on the Forum, maybe on a different site, or maybe I'm not looking hard enough?



Also, like Raymond and bob jenkins, I'm interested in discussing the dead ball collision in the lane.

I wasn't really concerned about who the foul was on. I was just wondering if they were reviewing it for the timing of that collision compared to the timing of the technical foul.

But that would only matter if an official blew their whistle for the collision.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I wasn't really concerned about who the foul was on. I was just wondering if they were reviewing it for the timing of that collision compared to the timing of the technical foul.

But that would only matter if an official blew their whistle for the collision.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I was also wondering if they were checking whether blue's contact was intentional. Did Blue have time to avoid white and still chose to run into her? Did blue "launch" (probably too strong a word) at white? Both questions raised while first watching the video and, given apparent higher tensions, worth=y of a look. Neither official was watching that area when the contact happened.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I was just wondering if they were reviewing it for the timing of that collision compared to the timing of the technical foul.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I was also wondering if they were checking whether blue's contact was intentional. Did Blue have time to avoid white and still chose to run into her? Did blue "launch" ... at white? Both questions raised while first watching the video and, given apparent higher tensions, worthy of a look. Neither official was watching that area when the contact happened.

Agree, worthy of a discussion.

In my high school game, if I saw it, I would be unsure of intentional, might depend on what happened in the previous thirty-eight and a half minutes, and of course, we don't have access to a game monitors in high school for such situations. I had to view the video several times to decide that the contact was a split second after the technical foul whistle, and thus during a dead ball, a very split second. Of course the whistle may have trailed the act that caused as technical foul to be charged.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my high school game, if I saw it, I would be unsure of intentional, might depend on what happened in the previous thirty-eight and a half minutes, and of course, we don't have access to a game monitors in high school for such situations. I had to view the video several times to decide that the contact was a split second after the technical foul whistle, and thus during a dead ball, a very split second. Of course the whistle may have trailed the act that caused as technical foul to be charged.

So I watched it again, but assumed that there was no technical foul charged, just looked at the "train wreck" collision.

Is this a screen (delaying or preventing an opponent from reaching a desired position), or is this guarding (placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent)? Does it matter? With both screening and guarding a moving opponent (without the ball), time and distance are factors to be considered. In either case, White did not give Blue time and distance. Blocking foul.

Just looking at Blue, she had her head turned to her left (didn't see it coming) just before the collision, so in my opinion, no intentional foul here. A player who is screened outside her visual field may make contact and if running rapidly, the contact may be severe, especially with no time and distance given by the screener.

Can one illegally "blow through" an already illegal screen (or illegal guarding)?

[Altor]

Perhaps I'm just an old fogey who thinks this kind of conduct needs to be removed from all levels, but I'm looking for a reason to run her on that very first action.

NCAA-W Rule 10-15-1,2,3

It doesn't matter that the hand/fist didn't connect. She needs disqualified for fighting.