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

There are many many coaches across College Basketball that are basically a bunch of morons for practicing this play on a daily basis. Wow!!!!!! I guess a Rule is a Rule. Time to go on with life!!!!

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.

 

 

I don't think the kid from UGA stopped or attempted to stop on contact... that makes it a foul, right?

I don't think the kid from UGA stopped or attempted to stop on contact... that makes it a foul, right?

 

Watch the replay. He nails Smooth, stops and throws his arms up like "oops, my bad."

[/b]

There are many many coaches across College Basketball that are basically a bunch of morons for practicing this play on a daily basis. Wow!!!!!! I guess a Rule is a Rule. Time to go on with life!!!!

 

Coaches are not exactly rules experts.

 

If you think so, check out a coach the next time his team has the ball in their frontcourt and the ball is deflected by the defense, touches the offense before crossing the division line, and then they get called for over and back when his player is the first to touch the ball. They freak out like the official was blind.

Watch the replay. He nails Smooth, stops and throws his arms up like "oops, my bad."

 

If you watch through these blue tinted glasses you might see it differently.:lol:

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.

 

I think the kid from UGA should have been able to see Bradley in his periferal (I know that one isn't spelled right, but I did my best) vision. That makes it a foul right?

Coaches are not exactly rules experts.

 

If you think so, check out a coach the next time his team has the ball in their frontcourt and the ball is deflected by the defense, touches the offense before crossing the division line, and then they get called for over and back when his player is the first to touch the ball. They freak out like the official was blind.

 

And i'm not a rule expert myself. That's what makes me a fan!!!!

I think the kid from UGA should have been able to see Bradley in his periferal (I know that one isn't spelled right, but I did my best) vision. That makes it a foul right?

 

Obviously, that's a judgment call. I'd say , unfortunately, that the screen was not within his visual field.

And i'm not a rule expert myself. That's what makes me a fan!!!!

 

I was screaming right along with you until I pulled out the rulebook.

Not going to lie, haven't even seen the highlights, but I've always been taught that you take care of your business and don't let the game come down to a refs call...

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.

 

If that is the rule, then I have witnessed the officials blow that one by calling similar fouls approximately a thousand times.

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.

There's your answer ! He made no attempt to stop, and he did not go around the screener, he was on the floor ! As I said earlier, make the call ! :thumb:

There's your answer ! He made no attempt to stop, and he did not go around the screener, he was on the floor ! As I said earlier, make the call ! :thumb:

 

Re-read the rule. It doesn't say its a foul if he doesn't go around the screener. It says that in the "blind screen" ONCE he makes contact he must attempt to stop rather than keep on running.

HOLY CRAP....

 

I just now saw that and come on... that was a foul, he got murdered..

HOLY CRAP....

 

I just now saw that and come on... that was a foul, he got murdered..

 

It was a foul, and it was a tough situation, hate to see things go that way but there's not much that can be done about it.