It was a great play - and a great game plan by BCG. The Cats should have been rewarded with the foul call.

I disagree with the incidental interpretation of the rule. When a player sets a ball screen and the defender doesn't know it's coming, if the defender runs through the screen it is a foul. Same situation here. It was a foul.

Bradley may have missed the free throws, but he should have gotten the chance to step to the line.

 

The rule that was quoted earlier can be used for incidental contact, but is generally not called away from the ball or play, where no advantage is had by either team. However, in this case the advantage clearly went to the other team. What if Ky. had no time outs left ? They would have had to make a call one way or the other, 5 seconds on Ky or a foul .:thumb:

The goaltending would of been smart if it wasn't a technical foul.

 

I've been out with my kids, but when I left, the announcers couldn't find the specific rule that said it was a tech.

Could UK have made lane violations over and over until he made the shot? Is there a point when that would have been a technical too?

I've been out with my kids, but when I left, the announcers couldn't find the specific rule that said it was a tech.

Could UK have made lane violations over and over until he made the shot? Is there a point when that would have been a technical too?

Didn't think of that one. That's an interesting thought.

It's just like a Kentucky fans to blame a loss on one call. If they played better on offense and defense or made more free throws then it wouldn'thave come down to that.

Every school has it's fair share of fans that will look at a single call. There's plenty of us on here that have not only disagreed with it being a foul, but have pointed out that UK should have just taken care of business before that.

 

Just like Cincinnati fans to make blanket statements.

ESPN did a story on the game and Steve Lavin really got on the refs for not calling the foul as well as the other two on ESPN. They all said it should of been called a foul and a story is going to be on college gameday tom. about the "non-call"

Every school has it's fair share of fans that will look at a single call. There's plenty of us on here that have not only disagreed with it being a foul, but have pointed out that UK should have just taken care of business before that.

 

Just like Cincinnati fans to make blanket statements.

 

Just in : Bob Knight said it was a foul !

Should have had Tubby draw up the play he did for Minn. last night. OH wait that will be a sore subject.

So I'm guesing coach Gillespie doesn't know the rules then....Come on...

 

And Bobby Knight!!!! He said it was definately a missed call and referees know to look for it.

It was a foul but you can't call that end of story.

 

Why cant you if its a foul? I think it should have been called but it wasnt and Uk lost. They /we had several chances to win and didnt. They/we will live to play another day, its not the end of the world.

It's still the same type of foul. Bradley was getting the guy out of the in bounders face so that he could possibly throw it long...should have been a foul. No doubt about it.

 

By what rule?

So I'm guesing coach Gillespie doesn't know the rules then....Come on...

 

Brother, I cited the rule for you so , yes, I guess Coach G didn't know the rule.

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."

 

The ONLY way you can read that and STILL insist that it was a foul was if you believe that the defender actually saw the screen.

Brother, I cited the rule for you so , yes, I guess Coach G didn't know the rule.

 

Brother, with that kind of contact, there's noway it's a no-call for either side of the ball. Noway!!!! Rule or no Rule, it's not a no-call. Somebody committed a foul. I would of been happy with a blocking call but instead the guy swallows........

Brother, with that kind of contact, there's noway it's a no-call for either side of the ball. Noway!!!! Rule or no Rule, it's not a no-call. Somebody committed a foul. I would of been happy with a blocking call but instead the guy swallows........

 

Read the rule I quoted word for word. You may not like the actual rule but the refs made the right call.

It's simply amazing to me how some of you can still be crying for a foul when cshs81 posted the rule. As the rule reads it was not a foul. It's as simple as that. Let it go.