Oakland vs Youngstown State (video and article)
 

Y! SPORTS

1:56 mark
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/gfMEdAzaHt0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

From the article:

Both times Kampe took the time to warn the referees ahead of time what he was planning.

"I go, 'You got to call it now if he runs him over,'" Kampe told reporters after the game. "He goes, 'If he runs him over, Bader goes down and he goes down on top of him, I'll call it.'"


What would you say if a coach warns you of an upcoming play? Anything?

I'll look to see that both teams / players are legal.

That is a terrible foul call. The defender did nothing illegal. The screen was set outside his field of vision, so he is not responsible for avoiding contact. He did not extend an arm to try to push through the defender once contact was made. This is one of those instances where severe/violent contact can occur without a foul being called on either player. In fact, if I was going to call any foul (I wouldn't) it would be on the player setting the screen for not giving the defender time and distance on a screen set outside their field of view.

I thought we had discussed here ad nauseum that this exact play - a player running hard into a screen - was not a foul.

On a similar note....anyone see the finish to Marquette @ Providence last night? Down 1 w/ approx. 7 seconds left, the Providence HC told the officials they weren't trying to foul - but were gonna try & get a jump ball (Providence had the arrow) on the ensuing throw-in by Marquette.

Sure enough, the Marquette guard receives the ball, "covers up" waiting to be fouled...and the Providence player grabs the ball....tweet - Jump Ball!

Providence gets fouled on the following inbounds pass, makes both FT's (to go ahead by 1), and wins after a missed MU shot at the buzzer.

That's good coaching.....AND....good officiating!

IF a coach tells me ahead of time what they're gonna do...my response: "I'll look for it"...and then officiate it based on what happens.

Illegal screen. Defender was in motion and the screener didn't get there with time/distance.....was even still moving into the defender at the time of contact.

As for what I'd do if they told me about the play they're planning....I'll know where I need to look.

I've even asked coaches/players, if the situation permits, what they're planning to do when coming out of a timeout on a late game play. Why not know where to focus in a critical situation. Going long, going short and dribbling up?

You beat me to it. My immediate thought was this was an illegal screen.

No doubt that was an illegal screen.

Why is this play so "brilliant and clever?" It's been around forever.

Because an official was finally duped into calling a foul on the defense. All the other times I remember this play happening at D1 level, there were no calls.

Same here. By the time the screener got into Red 25's visual field, Red 25 didn't have a normal step to stop or change direction.

As for being "brilliant and clever," I remember Billy Packer always complaining it shouldn't be called a foul because "the official knows what the team with the ball is trying to do (i.e., draw the foul)." Huh??

Because it's Yahoo Sports.

I can see an IS call here - he may well have been moving.

I have a real hard time with a defensive foul though.

Johnny D read the Fourth below.
 

First, full disclosure: Everybody knows I am a graduate of Youngstown State University.

Second: While I wish that YSU had won, they have lost too many close games this year to be worthy of going to the NCAA.

Third: I would have called an illegal screen on OU-2 because he did not give Time and Distance.

Fourth: Let us assume that OU-2 did achieve Time and Distance against YSU-2. If there is contact between YSU-2 and OU-2 and OU is knocked down, there is no foul as long as YSU-2 stops upon contact and does not continue running through OU-2.

The words above in red are the key to setting screens (offensive or defensive) against a moving player. Physics tell us that when we have a completely elastic collision that the momentum (P) of the system must be the same before and after the collision. Collisions between human bodies are not elastic but can be considered inelastic. That means it is very difficult for the screened player to stop instantly upon contact. I cannot remember that last time I saw a screened player in this circumstances stopping the instant he made contact with the screener.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, you are only partially correct. The rule states the player running through the screen has to stop or attempt to stop. I am sure the people who wrote the rule realize there is no way the screened player can instantly stop once he makes contact. If the screen was legal, this should be considered incidental contact.

Can't we use the same ""to" versus "to and through" language to officiate this play?

I have a defensive foul for running through the (in my opinion) legal screen.

Legal screen?

Anyone agree Bader's step back dribble behind the 3point arc is a travel violation?

No, he still has his dribble when he takes the step back and gathers while airborne. Legal jump stop.

Just think about having both these phrases in the same sentence.

Yes, that's what I wrote? You sound confused?

He and others would be confused because the screen was not legal.

It is close, but I think the screen is legal. I do not think the screener violated NCAA 4-34-3a or 4-34-3c.

Perhaps the defender should have been more aware of where he was going instead of being so focused on the ball.

He does not have a dribble. His dribble stopped. Picked up ball and stepped back. Feet did not land at the same time. Defense was good. defense put at disadvantage by allowing dribbler to violate.

So you don't like the blind screen rule, so defenders shouldn't get protection from it?

Liking or disliking the rule has nothing to do with it. I will admit that the more I watch the video, the more it looks illegal.

Is it possible the Trail keeps holding his arm up hoping C could help out with this screen's legality?

Nope (assuming it is the play by #3 on the right end of the court on the far side that occurred shortly after the illegal screen part of the ciip).

I don't think he picked up the ball until after he jumped...allowing him to land on either or both feet.

Your discription of the play is a travel, but that's not what happened. Look at it again.

Give a guy a break. My beloved Penguins lost and we are beating this play to death. :D

MTD, Sr.