Never thought I'd see it...

[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."

[lpneck]

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!

[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.