Never thought I'd see it...

[jdw3018]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

You wouldn't line up to shoot the original FT, would you?

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

Gotcha, thanks. Kentucky ball for endline throw-in.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

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.

So he's too close to avoid him yet you still expect him to.

Are you nuts?

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So he's too close to avoid him yet you still expect him to.

Are you nuts?

CERTIFIED.

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Watch it again, just before he hit him, the defender caught the screener in the corner of his eye and looked at him as he ran into him. By rule the screener was in his visual field and he has to try to avoid him or it is a foul. Like I said this rule is EXTREMELY ambiguous and the "visual field" part of it is a joke.

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So he's too close to avoid him yet you still expect him to.

Are you nuts?

I am not nuts, I am reflecting on the rule as it is written. The rule justifies a foul call and a non-call at the same time. That is nuts to me.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

Watch it again, just before he hit him, the defender caught the screener in the corner of his eye and looked at him as he ran into him. By rule the screener was in his visual field and he has to try to avoid him or it is a foul.

In the corner of his eye? The "corner"? Are you serious?

I've watched that play in slo-mo a couple of dozen times. As I said, imo there is nowayinhell the defender saw the screener before the contact. He's watching the thrower.

[Larks]

Footage of the screen in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZOOGCGr38

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

Watch it again, just before he hit him, the defender caught the screener in the corner of his eye and looked at him as he ran into him. By rule the screener was in his visual field and he has to try to avoid him or it is a foul. Like I said this rule is EXTREMELY ambiguous and the "visual field" part of it is a joke.

I do not see any indication that Jackson (the defender) saw the screen coming. I've watched the video over and over and I don't see it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

I am not nuts, I am reflecting on the rule as it is written. The rule justifies a foul call and a non-call at the same time. That is nuts to me.

You saw it wrong and have the rule wrong. No foul...period.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Larks

Footage of the screen in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZOOGCGr38

That's the one. Appreciated, Andy.

Look at the the defender's head, Cajun. He never sees the screener until contact is made.

The pertinent NCAA cite is found in APPENDIX III at the back of the rulebook. See #2 labeled "SCREENING." #2(e) states "In cases of blind screens, the opponent may 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 incidental contact provided that the opponent stops (or attempts to stop) on contact and moves around the screen, and provided that the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball."

Same language basically as FED 4-40-7.

The only judgment on this play imo is whether this is actually a blind screen or not. After seeing it dozens of time, I'd say it is. At the worse, it might be seen as doubtful either way, also imo. In that case, in any situation when there's any doubt, I don't think a call should be made.

Jmo.

[mj]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You saw it wrong and have the rule wrong. No foul...period.

Agree. I got nothing on the screen.

I also thought I would never see a GT on a free throw. Especially in a D1 game with a big time coach. Silly monkey.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Larks

Footage of the screen in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZOOGCGr38

Whether he sees him or not, if a defender hammers a screener you can call it or let it go. You have to manage the situation based on your judgment. You cannot allow defenders to intimidate screeners by blindly slamming through them.

That video is great. Whether or not he sees him or not, that was not nearly enough to call the foul on the defender. No lowered shoulder, no brutal contact. The screener also went down awfully easily. Typically, a strong screen there decks the defender. Looks to me like a semi-flop, because screen setters generally don't slide when they get popped--folks taking charges do, though. Screen setters getting hammered usually go down really hard. This kid didn't. He slid and looked right up for the call, like he took a charge.

Absolute no call on that.

[eyezen]

Also, to supplement what JR posted here is Ap III Section 2(c):

When a screener takes a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction, it is a personal foul.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Whether he sees him or not, if a defender hammers a screener you can call it or let it go. You have to manage the situation based on your judgment. You cannot allow defenders to intimidate screeners by blindly slamming through them.

That video is great. Whether or not he sees him or not, that was not nearly enough to call the foul on the defender. No lowered shoulder, no brutal contact. The screener also went down awfully easily. Typically, a strong screen there decks the defender. Looks to me like a semi-flop, because screen setters generally don't slide when they get popped--folks taking charges do, though. Screen setters getting hammered usually go down really hard. This kid didn't. He slid and looked right up for the call, like he took a charge.

Absolute no call on that.

What the hell ever. Go back and re-read JR's post repeatedly until you understand the correlation between a blind screen and incidental contact.

Uh uh, no. Go back and read it. Read it until you believe it.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

What the hell ever. Go back and re-read JR's post repeatedly until you understand the correlation between a blind screen and incidental contact.

Uh uh, no. Go back and read it. Read it until you believe it.

I understand it 100%. Incidental contact is whatever I decide to pass on. The play on the video is not even close to a foul, in my opinion.