Bilas

[just another ref]

pulled a Bilas tonight. Vasquez of Maryland drew his fifth on a PC foul, which looked like a pretty easy call to me. As they started the replay, Bilas said, "That's a tough call. Henderson is.....well, he is outside the box, where it would be. It's still a tough call.......for your fifth foul......but a good call."

very analytical

[grunewar]

That's why they pay him the big bucks!

[fiasco]

He also called this:







a legal screen.

[just another ref]

"That was a legal screen. He put a little bit into it, but you've gotta expect that." Jay Bilas

He even mentioned, it's legal, unless he raised his arms. Appears to me that he did raise his arms. I thought it was a foul. Not an extremely dirty foul, not a flagrant foul, but a foul.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Appears to me that he did raise his arms. I thought it was a foul. Not an extremely dirty foul, not a flagrant foul, but a foul.

I agree with you, not only because he did raise his arms slightly, from a "protect the jewels" position to a "blocking" position, but because he took a step towards the defender just before the collision occurred. It's a small step, but sometimes that small step is enough to cause a major wreck.

I don't know what the NCAA rule is about blindside screens like this, but I believe under FED this would be a foul because of the way the defender and the screener were facing prior to the collision? I don't have my books here so I can't cite anything, but recall "instruction" from a supervisor on this.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I agree with you, not only because he did raise his arms slightly, from a "protect the jewels" position to a "blocking" position, but because he took a step towards the defender just before the collision occurred. It's a small step, but sometimes that small step is enough to cause a major wreck.

I don't know what the NCAA rule is about blindside screens like this, but I believe under FED this would be a foul because of the way the defender and the screener were facing prior to the collision? I don't have my books here so I can't cite anything, but recall "instruction" from a supervisor on this.

It was a blind screen, so the screener has to give one or two strides after setting the screen. He didn't.

Also, you can't lean into the screen. He did.

It was illegal. Tough call at that speed, to be sure, but a missed one nonetheless.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I apologize for being agressive and hard-headed in this thread, BUT, over my long career, I have observed that far, far, far, far too many basketball officials do an absolutely terrible job of applying the guarding/screening (block/charge) principles correctly. We as a whole do an absolutely terrible job of applying the rule correctly.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Late to the party....no foul. Nothing the screener did, even if not absolutely stationary, caused or increased the amount of contact. At worst, he braced for the impending collision. The minor "lean" didn't put the screener more into the path of the defender at all. The only impact it had was to allow the screener to not get knocked on his backside when the defender ran into him. The defender was going to run sqare into the screeners chest with or without the minor lean....therefore, the lean was not relevant.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Late to the party....no foul. Nothing the screener did, even if not absolutely stationary, caused or increased the amount of contact. At worst, he braced for the impending collision. The minor "lean" didn't put the screener more into the path of the defender at all. The only impact it had was to allow the screener to not get knocked on his backside when the defender ran into him. The defender was going to run sqare into the screeners chest with or without the minor lean....therefore, the lean was not relevant.

Camron:

Thank you! Thank you! Someone who thinks like me. You are not doomed.

MTD, Sr.