Never thought I'd see it...

[Cajun Reff]

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. UGA 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."

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

"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 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 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."

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.