Honestly I would've been cool with it either way. If they called a foul, and UK went to the line, I would've thought it to be a bush league move by BCG. While I still do, the refs were right not to call it, IMO.

Sportscenter guys are saying that he could see the screen before he ran over Bradley. They stopped and highlighted the UGA guy's face/line of vision.

BCG was after the refs and a rent-a-cop gave him a hip check!

Sportscenter guys are saying that he could see the screen before he ran over Bradley. They stopped and highlighted the UGA guy's face/line of vision.

 

I thought they were highlighting the ref's line of vision.

The pick was within his actual visual field or reasonably should have been unless he is like Dick Vitale or has no peripheral vision whatsoever.

I thought they were highlighting the ref's line of vision.

 

They did the player's line of vision 1st and then the ref's view of the play 2nd.

I'm fine with the call, but come on they UK you give us that call.. :lol:

 

Now that I've thought about it, I can handle that call either way, especially in that situation... The way my luck was going Ramel was going to miss both anyway.

 

I think that is a pretty amazing play call by BCG though.

If BCG knows the rules so well why did he have Stepheson goal tend and get a techinical. He did not know it was going to be a techinical. So it shows he does not know the rules that well.

If BCG knows the rules so well why did he have Stepheson goal tend and get a techinical. He did not know it was going to be a techinical. So it shows he does not know the rules that well.

 

Exactly what I was thinking, I couldn't believe that. What made it even funnier is Dave Baker said that was not the case, DB said Stevenson lost his footing was about to get a lane violation so he just decided to jump up and swat it.

Dave Baker is not one of my favorites.

Dave Baker is not one of my favorites.

 

He doesn't know his stuff that's for sure.

Refs definitely swallowed their whistles on this one...BUT....UK's 16-for-25 free throw shooting cost them this game.

So I pull out the ol' trusty rulebook and lo' and behold....

 

ITS NOT A FOUL

 

4-40-7 deals with this. Its "incidental conduct" due to the fact that the defender was not in position to see the pick coming. The rulebook even says that while the contact may be "severe" it is not a foul.

 

Now you know.

 

 

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf

 

Looks like you spliced a few of the articles together.

 

Rule 4

Section 40

Article 5

 

A player who is screened outside his or her visual field maymake contact with the screener. Such contact shall be incidental, provided that the screener is not displaced when he or she has the ball.

 

The reference you make to contact being permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive is in Article 2 and in reference to two players in equally favorable positions going for a loose ball.

 

I am guessing you are referring to the appendix 3 Section 2 Article e, which talks about contact being severe and ruled as incidental contact "provided that the opponent stops (or attempts to stop) on contact and moves around the screen." Not sure that was the case in this situation either as he pretty much went right through Bradley and kept going.

 

Having said all of that, I know I would have felt jobbed had the shoe been on the other foot and the call went against UK. The call did not cost UK that game. UK lost the game by not converting at the foul line. UK also had plenty of opportunities to win the game. UGA hit a prayer and that happens sometimes.

Now that I've seen it again I'm back to saying it's a foul..

They did the player's line of vision 1st and then the ref's view of the play 2nd.

 

I saw the same thing and they pointed out that the player clearly should of seen the screen. Must of been the talk behind the scenes at Sportscenter for them to do the player's line of vision.