Read NFHS rule 4-40-7.

Also see NFHS rule 4-27-4 re: incidental contact. Note that displacement can be ruled incidental contact as long as the player being displaced doesn't have the ball.

The NCAA rules have similar language and use the same philosophy, but I'm not gonna look 'em up.

Y'all need to learn the rules.

Here's the wording from the NFHS rulebook:

4-40-7 (Screens)

"A player who is screened within his visual field is expected to avoid contact by going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent make make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he has the ball."

Saw the highlights on ESPN...

2 notes...

1.) The goaltend on the FT was a variation of the "lane violation" play where a team is down by 2 with less than 2 seconds to go, and wants to ensure that they will be able to throw the ball in, instead of having to rebound a miss and throw up a 90 foot prayer.

On the highlight, Gillespie clearly yells from the bench "goaltend it!" to his team. I'm sure he didn't know that it is an automatic T.

2.) Great body block by the cop on Gillespie as he is going after the officials on their way off the floor!

This quote is telling. These two situations could not have less in common.

It is "by the book" to ignore contact (even severe) on a screen outside the visible area of the player being screened.

It is "by the book" to call a blocking foul on a player who illegally displaces a ball-handler forcing him to step on the boundary line.

Not true. Gillespie told him to GT the FT, so that they would get the ball for the throw-in.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
The screener did his job. He took the defender out of the play. If you call the foul, the defender is now being penalized twice....and both times for the same screen. Note that displacement isn't a factor unless the defender tried to run through the screen.

That's the philosophy used in both high school and college ball to call screens. NFHS rule 4-40-7&8 lay it out. NCAA rules use similar language.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That's no different than what Jurassic wrote, Camron.

For the record I am an LSU alumni and I despise UK and UGA. That being said, that play is as old as the game itself and I really think the reffs blew the call. The fact that Felton didn't warn the kid guarding the thrower and UK ran the play to perfection and didn't get rewarded for it makes me wince as an official and as a fan of college basketball

IMHO the screen wasn't a "blind" screen that the UGA defender couldn't see, it was set on the defender's left shoulder in his peripheral vision. The defender ran over a set screener in a legal, stationary position. He made no attempt to avoid the screener, he hit the screener with his shoulder in the middle of his chest. IMHO It was not an "incidental contact" play, it was a foul. If you want to argue defender's intent, then yes his intent was to challenge the throw in just like his coach told him to. That doesn't give him free reign to run over an opponent in a legal screening position just because he is not aware of his surroundings.

reading the NFHS rule on this, it seems ambiguous to me
the red would require the official to make a spot determination what is in the defender's vision. A "back" pick or blind screen behind the defender is easy to determine visual field. A screen set on his shoulder is not as easy to determine, but it doesn't excuse a defender focused on the ball running over a set screener that is perpendicular to him. "May make" is certainly NOT the same language as "CAN make" contact.

the blue would indicate "intent." Did the UGA defender see the screen and choose to run into him on purpose? Only he knows for sure and I am sure he would say no. That being said he made no attempt to "check up" and he hit the screener square in the chest with his shoulder. The play is run and is successful because the "visual field" comment is ambiguous and a screen set squarely (middle of the chest on the defender's shoulder) is not usually considered "a blind pick."

For me the ambiguity is "what is he looking at (straight ahead)" vs "what should he be looking at (head on a swivel)?" This exact same situation applies to the screen and roll play and in every venue, running over the screener is not allowed. If it was, coaches would have a new method to defend the screen and roll and NBA through biddy teams teams would do it night in and night out.

I know some of you will take the rule book and bash me over the head with it and that is fine. The ambiguity of "field of vision" and "visual field" makes you just as wrong or just as right as me, to me there really is no right answer. I think UK did it right, UGA should have been prepared for it (I admit the play is chicken s++t junior high basketballesque) and seemingly the rules should have been in UK's favor. They didn't get the call, the Grey area of this rule provides a nice umbrella for that SEC crew and it will all be forgotten tomorrow.

In USA Today this morning, Gillispie is quoted as saying that he didn't know it was a technical foul. Now he knows.:)

Another case of a coach out-smarting himself......

Can I laugh at the people only wanting a foul here because the screener is the one going to the floor?

How many times have you seen a guy end up on his *** because he didn't see a screen coming? Did you call a foul there?

It doesn't matter who hits the deck, kids.

NCAA, UK ball anywhere along endline; after shooting 2 for the T for GT and line up to shoot the origianl FT entitled before GT.

You wouldn't line up to shoot the original FT, would you? That doesn't make sense since you would award the point for GT...

OK....I didn't see that....the feed I was watching was not the best and couldn't rewind to watch again.

I guess it is the same. On first reading, I must have mis-read it. Of course, displacement is always a factor if it is not a blind screen.

exactly and I watched the play several times last night and this morning. Just before he hit the screener, the UGA defender looked right at him (and admittedly was startled that a UK player was that close) and THEN hit him. It can not be incidental contact if he looked at him because the screen was in his VISUAL FIELD and by rule he has to try to avoid contact. UK ran the play to perfection and didnt get rewarded for it.

I expect to see this tape at some camps and reviews this offseason.

I still disagree....and note I'm a Kentucky fan and would have been far happier to see a call go in Kentucky's favor.

Seeing a screen just before contact doesn't make it a foul....seeing it in time to stop/turn and avoid contact does. As you said, it was only just before he hit the screen and he was startled that it was there. That tells me that he saw it too late to stop or change paths.

UK ran a screen play to perfection but didn't run the "right" play to perfection.

1. Screens are intended to free up a player. It did exactly that. The thrower was completely unguarded after the screen. Success for the screen.
2. The defender gained no advantage....he was taken out of the play by the screen. Success for the screen.
3. The screener was not put at a disadvantage....part of the cost of setting a screen is potentially being knocked down. Neutral.

The only way UK could have drawn a foul was to make sure the defender saw the screen WELL before the contact....giving the defender time to go around or stop.....OR.....to pass the ball in to the screener just before contact.

I watched that play a dozen times today, while discussing it. There is nowayinhell the defender ever looked at the screener before contact was made. He was watching the thrower.

The play I saw is from an endline camera looking directly at the defender.

I disagree completely with you.

[quote=jdw3018]You wouldn't line up to shoot the original FT, would you?

I missed that: correct; shoot the T POI from there