Never thought I'd see it...

[jdw3018]

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?

[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."

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[cshs81]

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?"

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[ref2coach]

OK, How much does "mind reading" cost? Do we order that from Honigs?

BITS & JR thanks for the amplification. Still learning.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[cshs81]

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[socalreff]

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?

[socalreff]

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Where does it say anywhere that displacement is not a foul.

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.

[cshs81]

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."

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Some of these same people here defended the call in the Villanova v. Georgetown game. Ya'll gotta be consistent.

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.