2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[twocentsworth]

that is ABSOLUTELY an illegal screen. RSBQ (rythm, speed, balance, & quickness) also applies to a defender - if it is interrupted by an offensive player who has NOT establish a legal screening position...it is a FOUL.

if Les Jones wants to work next weekend, he better make that call - especially with John Adams sitting courtside.

btw -based on last nights game, Bryan Kersey and Brian Dorsey shouldn't wait for the "phone to ring" w/ an invitation to Houston...

[CLH]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Looks to me that he was passing the ball and setting a screen. I was an expert at setting screens in the high post while dropping the ball off to a cutting guard.

I'm having trouble understanding how one sets a screen while their feet are off the ground and passing the ball. Maybe you could help me?

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It does look like he threw his body into the defender to shield the pass attempt.

Not sure I would have called anything at first glance, but it appears to be the right call.

Peace

+1

I'll take this side.

I'm not sure how you call a block. What real advantage was gained by the defense?

Now, an illegal screen foul or just a foul? The contact definitely freed up the offensive player to take an unopposed shot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It does look like he threw his body into the defender to shield the pass attempt.

Not sure I would have called anything at first glance, but it appears to be the right call.

Peace

The way I see the replay, he throws the pass and immediately realizes the defender has a clear path. He throws himself into that defender to clog up the path.

Great call from the C.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CLH

I'm having trouble understanding how one sets a screen while their feet are off the ground and passing the ball. Maybe you could help me?

Passing the ball and having one's feet off the ground don't preclude a player from attempting to set a screen. As JRut said it appears Taylor threw his body into the defender. He was attempting to set a screen, IMO.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by grunewar

+1

I'll take this side.

I'm not sure how you call a block. What real advantage was gained by the defense?

Now, an illegal screen foul or just a foul? The contact definitely freed up the offensive player to take an unopposed shot.

Does it matter? If he is trying to prevent the actions or affects the movements of the opponent, what we call it is not relevant in the bigger picture.

Am I alone in that thinking?

Peace

[CLH]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Passing the ball and having one's feet off the ground don't preclude a player from attempting to set a screen. As JRut said it appears Taylor threw his body into the defender. He was attempting to set a screen, IMO.

If thats your call, go with it my man Beware of calls that commentators agree with! lol

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CLH

If thats your call, go with it my man Beware of calls that commentators agree with! lol

Not just his call.

I always watch these replays without sound, so I have no idea whether the announcers agreed or not.

[APG]

Originally Posted by CLH

If thats your call, go with it my man Beware of calls that commentators agree with! lol

Haha this is true...I forgot to make the clip without sound like I try to do.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CLH

If thats your call, go with it my man Beware of calls that commentators agree with! lol

What do commentators have to do with it? I watched the play on YouTube with no sound.

I did notice a few officials agreed with the call. Should I beware of that also?

[CLH]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What do commentators have to do with it? I watched the play on YouTube with no sound.

I did notice a few officials agreed with the call. Should I beware of that also?

ya know what, you're completely right man, how dare me try to make a joke of such a serious moment...shame, shame on me I tell ya!

[rulesmaven]

Lots of chatter on the internet about a technical foul called early in the second half in the SDSU/UConn game for a bump during a time out. Link at the bottom with a video; I don't know how to imbed.

On a more extended replay, they showed the entire play. SDSU scores a basket. Connecticut calls a TO. One of the SDSU players comes over to woof at Connecticut's walker -- getting into his face. He then backs off, but then on the way to the bench lowers the shoulder and gives him a bump. During the commercial, the crew apparently went to the monitor (as reported by the announcers -- you didn't see it on tv). They called a T.

I think seeing the whole play in context it's an easy T. But I also think there's clearly some embellishment on the part of the Connecticut player.

Is Kemba Walker a flopper or just a great player? - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

[Andy]

It appears to me that he went up in the air to make the pass, then collided with the defender. The contact had the result of freeing the shooter for an open shot. When he left the ground, his "intent" was not to throw his body into the defender, but that is what ended up happening.

FWIW, my final judgement would lean to a no-call, incidental contact. I don't consider what the offensive player was doing a screen, and the contact created by the defender did not disadvantage the offensiver player from passing the ball.

Of course, this is after having the luxury of watching it a few times in replay. I did not see the play live as I was watching the Ariz/Duke game.

[Adam]

Yep, he embellished, which may have served to draw the officials' attention and take them to the monitor. Even without the flop, it's at least a borderline T and therefore a stupid move.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Andy

It appears to me that he went up in the air to make the pass, then collided with the defender. The contact had the result of freeing the shooter for an open shot. When he left the ground, his "intent" was not to throw his body into the defender, but that is what ended up happening.

FWIW, my final judgement would lean to a no-call, incidental contact. I don't consider what the offensive player was doing a screen, and the contact created by the defender did not disadvantage the offensiver player from passing the ball.

Of course, this is after having the luxury of watching it a few times in replay. I did not see the play live as I was watching the Ariz/Duke game.

Whether you consider it a screen isn't relevant. That's what it was. Even if it wasn't his intent, the result was an illegally screened defender.