The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 01:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Never thought I'd see it...

GT on a FT, just happened in the Kentucky vs. Georgia game. Officials correctly called it a T.

Situation: UGA on the line for for FT's. UK player loses balance and steps in the lane VERY early. Knowing he's going to be called for the violation, he decides to make sure the shooter has to shoot again and swats the ball away before it gets to the rim. Whistle blows at first for the violation and after a brief hesitation, the Trail signals a T. Dumb play...and that's why that rule exists.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 01:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 477
In overtime and Kentucky was down 2 with 1.2 seconds and he goaltends the free throw...
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,896
So, UGA was awarded 1 for the goaltended FT, then shot the two Ts.

In NCAA, whose ball where? Is that a POI T, or 2 and the ball?
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 361
Almost as interesting is the action before the KY TO after the UG made basket. KY player moving alone end line to attempt TI, KY teammate obtains what appears to be a legal position to screen. UG player focusing on guarding the in-bounder makes significant contact to the chest of the KY screener, displacing the screener. Referees pass on calling the foul.

Why? Player worked to get proper position, in-bounder timed his run properly, defender failed to be aware of the situation and apparently fouled his opponent. Why is calling that foul any less meritorious than a defender fouling an opponent on a last second shot.

FYI not a KY fan, in fact somewhat anti KY after being seated among several KY fans when my wife and I attended the Final 4 in Indianapolis several years ago. They were needlessly obnoxious to 2 people just there to enjoy the games without having any "dog in the fight."
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 02:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by ref2coach
Almost as interesting is the action before the KY TO after the UG made basket. KY player moving alone end line to attempt TI, KY teammate obtains what appears to be a legal position to screen. UG player focusing on guarding the in-bounder makes significant contact to the chest of the KY screener, displacing the screener. Referees pass on calling the foul.

Why? Player worked to get proper position, in-bounder timed his run properly, defender failed to be aware of the situation and apparently fouled his opponent. Why is calling that foul any less meritorious than a defender fouling an opponent on a last second shot.

FYI not a KY fan, in fact somewhat anti KY after being seated among several KY fans when my wife and I attended the Final 4 in Indianapolis several years ago. They were needlessly obnoxious to 2 people just there to enjoy the games without having any "dog in the fight."
I must be missing something. Where's the foul? Just because a screener gets run over, flattened, or knocked into the third row, does not mean there's a foul. If, as you say, the UG player was focusing on guarding the thrower and didn't notice the screener, that's incidental contact.

Now if the UG player knew he was there, and decided to "play through" the screen, then it's a different story.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 02:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
I must be missing something. Where's the foul? Just because a screener gets run over, flattened, or knocked into the third row, does not mean there's a foul. If, as you say, the UG player was focusing on guarding the thrower and didn't notice the screener, that's incidental contact.

Now if the UG player knew he was there, and decided to "play through" the screen, then it's a different story.
How do you know what the UGA player "knows?"
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 03:05pm
9/11 - Never Forget
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,642
Send a message via Yahoo to grunewar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheRef
In overtime and Kentucky was down 2 with 1.2 seconds and he goaltends the free throw...
I loved the way the two officials got together to briefly discuss it and made the call very quickly. They were all over it. Good job!

PS - Did you see the expression on the kids face who got the T? It was like, "Really? Hmm, I didn't know that."
__________________
There was the person who sent ten puns to friends, with the hope that at least one of the puns would make them laugh. No pun in ten did.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 03:06pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cshs81
How do you know what the UGA player "knows?"
Any experienced official knows when a defensive player has seen a screen but decides to run through it anyway without trying to stop or go around. If you don't know, you won't be working at the D1 level very long.

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:13pm.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 03:11pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by ref2coach
KY player moving alone end line to attempt TI, KY teammate obtains what appears to be a legal position to screen. UG player focusing on guarding the in-bounder makes significant contact to the chest of the KY screener, displacing the screener. Referees pass on calling the foul.

Why? Player worked to get proper position, in-bounder timed his run properly, defender failed to be aware of the situation and apparently fouled his opponent. Why is calling that foul any less meritorious than a defender fouling an opponent on a last second shot.
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.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 03:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 119
Quote:
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.
Thanks for the reference. I'm not an official but do have a NFHS rulebook.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 03:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 361
OK, How much does "mind reading" cost? Do we order that from Honigs?

BITS & JR thanks for the amplification. Still learning.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 04:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
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.
I disagree. Displacement is a factor if the defender could see the screen, could have stopped, but ran into it anyway. The defender only gets a free pass for a knockdown on a blind screen.

That said, and being a Kentucky fan, i agree with the no-call. The only way UK could have drawn a foul on that play would be to actually throw the ball in to the screener just before the defender got to the screen. Having the ball or trying to catch the pass and being displaced would be the only way that contact would become a foul.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 07:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
I disagree. Displacement is a factor if the defender could see the screen, could have stopped, but ran into it anyway. The defender only gets a free pass for a knockdown on a blind screen.
That said, and being a Kentucky fan, i agree with the no-call. The only way UK could have drawn a foul on that play would be to actually throw the ball in to the screener just before the defender got to the screen. Having the ball or trying to catch the pass and being displaced would be the only way that contact would become a foul.
I see. So in your games displacement can only be a foul when committed against a player with the ball. Sheesh!!

So if I don't see a screen anywhere on the court because my teammate doesn't tell me, I get to play football?!? Awesome! I've always dreamed about being a linebacker.
Please show me where it says that displacement is only a foul depending on where it occurs. Anyone?
__________________
"Never mistake activity for achievement."
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 07:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
I disagree. Displacement is a factor if the defender could see the screen, could have stopped, but ran into it anyway. The defender only gets a free pass for a knockdown on a blind screen.

That said, and being a Kentucky fan, i agree with the no-call. The only way UK could have drawn a foul on that play would be to actually throw the ball in to the screener just before the defender got to the screen. Having the ball or trying to catch the pass and being displaced would be the only way that contact would become a foul.
Where does it say anywhere that displacement is not a foul. The defender clearly went through the screener and knocked him to the floor. It is not the official's job to think about where it is. Some of these same people here defended the call in the Villanova v. Georgetown game. Ya'll gotta be consistent.
__________________
"Never mistake activity for achievement."
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 07:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by socalreff
Where does it say anywhere that displacement is not a foul. The defender clearly went through the screener and knocked him to the floor. It is not the official's job to think about where it is. Some of these same people here defended the call in the Villanova v. Georgetown game. Ya'll gotta be consistent.
And if, in the official's judgement, the defender didn't know the screen was there, it's incidental contact. Not a foul. You do own a rule book, don't you?
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I wish I'd thought of it first Mark Padgett Basketball 0 Tue Jan 22, 2008 05:42pm
Never thought of this one . . . greymule Baseball 13 Sat Sep 16, 2006 07:06pm
Never thought I'd see this one... TussAgee11 Baseball 13 Mon Apr 03, 2006 03:58pm
Thats what I thought IREFU2 Basketball 11 Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:12pm
I thought i'd never see it! ace Basketball 13 Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:45am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1