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.

In overtime and Kentucky was down 2 with 1.2 seconds and he goaltends the free throw...

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?

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.

How do you know what the UGA player "knows?"

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."

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.

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.

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

BITS & JR thanks for the amplification. :) Still learning.

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?

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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."

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!

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.

Not true. Gillespie told him to GT the FT, so that they would get the ball for the throw-in.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That's no different than what Jurassic wrote, Camron.

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
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.

In USA Today this morning, Gillispie is quoted as saying that he didn't know it was a technical foul. Now he knows.:)

Another case of a coach out-smarting himself......

Can I laugh at the people only wanting a foul here because the screener is the one going to the floor?

How many times have you seen a guy end up on his *** because he didn't see a screen coming? Did you call a foul there?

It doesn't matter who hits the deck, kids.

NCAA, UK ball anywhere along endline; after shooting 2 for the T for GT and line up to shoot the origianl FT entitled before GT.

You wouldn't line up to shoot the original FT, would you? That doesn't make sense since you would award the point for GT...

OK....I didn't see that....the feed I was watching was not the best and couldn't rewind to watch again.

I guess it is the same. On first reading, I must have mis-read it. Of course, displacement is always a factor if it is not a blind screen.

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.

I expect to see this tape at some camps and reviews this offseason.

I still disagree....and note I'm a Kentucky fan and would have been far happier to see a call go in Kentucky's favor.

Seeing a screen just before contact doesn't make it a foul....seeing it in time to stop/turn and avoid contact does. As you said, it was only just before he hit the screen and he was startled that it was there. That tells me that he saw it too late to stop or change paths.

UK ran a screen play to perfection but didn't run the "right" play to perfection.

1. Screens are intended to free up a player. It did exactly that. The thrower was completely unguarded after the screen. Success for the screen.
2. The defender gained no advantage....he was taken out of the play by the screen. Success for the screen.
3. The screener was not put at a disadvantage....part of the cost of setting a screen is potentially being knocked down. Neutral.

The only way UK could have drawn a foul was to make sure the defender saw the screen WELL before the contact....giving the defender time to go around or stop.....OR.....to pass the ball in to the screener just before contact.

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.

[quote=jdw3018]You wouldn't line up to shoot the original FT, would you?

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

[QUOTE=truerookie]Gotcha, thanks. Kentucky ball for endline throw-in.

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

Are you nuts?

CERTIFIED.

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 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.

In the <b>corner</b> 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.

Footage of the screen in question.

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

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.

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

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 <i>"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 <b>incidental contact</b> 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."</i>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is where you're wrong. While you have the right conclusion, the reason is wrong.

By definition, knocking over a blind screen is not a foul...no matter how hard the contact. You implied that the amount of contact determined whether there would be a foul. The fact that it is blind is all you need to know....if the screened player then stops upon making contact.

If the player stops upon contact, there will never be a collision hard enough that requires a foul to be called, in my opinion. Application of the rule book is important.

Incorrect. It does matter whether he sees him. Irrelevant to the play in question.
This was correct.Irrelevant to the play in question.This is all irrelevant.

This is correct.

which is why the "visual field" part is ambiguous and why coaches run this play in this situation

I agree it's a bit ambiguous, and they may run it with the hope that they may draw a foul. However, the primary purpose of this play is to free the inbounder from pressure.
And "why" they run the play has nothing to do with the way it needs to be called. Hell, one coach recently had his player goal tend a free throw to ensure he had an inbounds pass following the free throw. It didn't work because, well, he didn't know the rule.

good point :)

What??? That makes no sense. The contact happens first....then the player must stop. The amount of contact is, again, irrelevant. You can't stop for something you dont' see until you either see it or hit it....too late to slow down and lessen the contact.

I agree with what you think is important...that's why I suggest you acutally not only read it but understand it.

I believe that if a defender hits a legal screener hard enough to negate the offensive advantage created by the screen, OR the contact is severe enough that it will lead to increased unnecessary physical play between teams in a game, it is a foul. It is up to the official to make that decision. Those who disagree, that is fine with me. No big deal.

Although you post under TheOracle, just out of curiousity how can you predict the future?

Ah, I see now. Just choose to ignore an explicit rule telling you otherwise.

There is no explicit rule. You can explain these calls on both sides. I'm more than happy to blow the whistle on a bonecrushing collision on a screen where the screener gets jacked up to prevent a fight or cheap shots later on. All I have to say according to the rule is that the defender did not stop on contact. Easy. But you can take the other side. I even understand it. In the grand scheme, it makes little difference.

You're right. Except for the explicit rule that you are choosing to ignore.

You mean the one that says that contact by a defender running into a blind screen is incidental.

....guess I better go rip that page out of my book.

Just because it is popular or an easy call to make doesn't make it right.

Another Judge ...
 

Isn't there a second judgment on this play, whether or not the player attempts to stop.

In my opinion:
Judgment #1: Blind screen
Judgment #2: Player attempted to stop
Thus: No foul

However, this is a tough play to call, in real time, and on the replay, and I'm willing to accept other interpretations.