Bradley leveling- Officials got it right!

[DerbyCityGlobetrotter]

According to the Official NCAA Rules book-

"In cases of Blind Screens the player being screened may 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 incidental contact, provided that the opponent stops (or attempts to stop) on contact and moves around screen, and provided that the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball."

Thought some of you might like to see this.

[DCWildcat]

Ask lighthouse about this, I think he provided some evidence that it was a bad call. What's the reference for this (e.g., rule number, etc.?) I didn't even know there was a separate "blind screen."

[Ukosumu]

According to the Official NCAA Rules book-

"In cases of Blind Screens the player being screened may 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 incidental contact, provided that the opponent stops (or attempts to stop) on contact and moves around screen, and provided that the screener is not displaced if he or she has the ball."

Thought some of you might like to see this.

If this is truly the way the rule reads then I was hosed multiple times in HS.

[JawadtheChinchilla]

That's a bunch of crap, because the guy who ran over Bradley made no attempt to stop or move around the screen.

[DerbyCityGlobetrotter]

Ask lighthouse about this, I think he provided some evidence that it was a bad call. What's the reference for this (e.g., rule number, etc.?) I didn't even know there was a separate "blind screen."

It's on page 46 of the Official Rules Handbook of Mens & Womens College Basketball.............you can access it from NCAA.org

[DCWildcat]

I don't really understand how that works kinesiologically (is that an adjective?)

So let's say a guy is running full steam ahead. Enough to make "severe" contact as it's written in there. And goes straight into a "blind" screen, so he doesn't see it coming. And he crashes right in. How's he supposed to try to move around then?

[Wildcat Larry]

They Georgia player did NOT try to stop and move around the screen and the screener was displaced about five feet. Nice try, but no banana.

It was a foul, an obvious foul.

[dhens7]

That's a bunch of crap, because the guy who ran over Bradley made no attempt to stop or move around the screen.

After the contact was made he did stop and even through his hands up as if to say "oops" The easiest way to get the foul called is to throw Bradley the ball right before the contact. Then the official has to call something, because Bradley would be in possession of the ball.

[crazzedcats22]

They Georgia player did NOT try to stop and move around the screen and the screener was displaced about five feet. Nice try, but no banana.

It was a foul, an obvious foul.

not according to Hank Nichols, national coordinator of officials and a former referee.

http://www.kentucky.com/276/story/349890.html

"The screener, Bradley, must give the defender, Jackson, time and distance to react to the screen, Nichols said. Plus, contact in and of itself does not mean a foul. As long as Jackson did not react in an overly aggressive manner to Bradley's screen, it should be a non-call."

[DerbyCityGlobetrotter]

I don't really understand how that works kinesiologically (is that an adjective?)

So let's say a guy is running full steam ahead. Enough to make "severe" contact as it's written in there. And goes straight into a "blind" screen, so he doesn't see it coming. And he crashes right in. How's he supposed to try to move around then?


The way I interpret it is....as long as he looks surprised-either during or after the contact............if he looks like he is bracing hisself before he makes contact and did not try to avoid it at all, then it would not be "inadvertent" at that point.

Its still an interpretation thing basically.

About 20 years ago Bobby Knight rant eh same play with one tenth of a second on the clock and got the call (he did tell the official what they were trying to do right before the play however) Knight's guy got the call went to the other end of the court and hit 2 free-throws to win the game.

[Wildcat Larry]

not according to Hank Nichols, national coordinator of officials and a former referee.

http://www.kentucky.com/276/story/349890.html

"The screener, Bradley, must give the defender, Jackson, time and distance to react to the screen, Nichols said. Plus, contact in and of itself does not mean a foul. As long as Jackson did not react in an overly aggressive manner to Bradley's screen, it should be a non-call."
Apparently, Hank Nichols can't read.

[kentuckyforthewin]

When that much contact is made its a foul. It's still a bad call no matter how you look at it.

[Wildcat Larry]

A classic case of one official trying to cover for his incompetent, at least momentarily, buddy.

[Matt Dillon]

Thought some of you might like to see this.

Evidently not based on the reaction to your thread. What Hank Nichols said puts an end to it as far as I'm concerned. I thought it was a foul on UGa., but I'm no expert and appearently I was wrong.

[DerbyCityGlobetrotter]

Evidently not based on the reaction to your thread. What Hank Nichols said puts an end to it as far as I'm concerned. I thought it was a foul on UGa., but I'm no expert and appearently I was wrong.

For the Record: "I do not like the rule" but according to my interpretation of it, the no-call on Saturday was not as botched as I originally thought it was......

[dhens7]

we have all seen several times a defender get absolutely leveld by a "hard screen." usually in the backcourt when the point guard is bringing the ball up the floor. If that is not a foul, then how is leveling the screener a call.

[BamaCat86]

not according to Hank Nichols, national coordinator of officials and a former referee.

http://www.kentucky.com/276/story/349890.html

"The screener, Bradley, must give the defender, Jackson, time and distance to react to the screen, Nichols said. Plus, contact in and of itself does not mean a foul. As long as Jackson did not react in an overly aggressive manner to Bradley's screen, it should be a non-call."

Bradley set up his screen to the immediate left of Jackson and Jackson took two steps before crashing into Bradly. At no time was Bradley behind Jackson. It was a textbook perfect screen no matter how you label it.
I just went back and watch the replay on my DVR.....CHARGE!

I have seen far less contact result in a charge involving a screen. Why should Jackson's reaction have anything to do with the call?

[union cat]

we have all seen several times a defender get absolutely leveld by a "hard screen." usually in the backcourt when the point guard is bringing the ball up the floor. If that is not a foul, then how is leveling the screener a call.

dhens7, you took the words right out of my fingers...

[BamaCat86]

we have all seen several times a defender get absolutely leveld by a "hard screen." usually in the backcourt when the point guard is bringing the ball up the floor. If that is not a foul, then how is leveling the screener a call.

The purpose in setting a screen is to make the defender stop or go around the screen. If the defender is not communicating with the rest of his team or not aware where everyone is on the floor he stands the risk of running into a "hard" screen and getting leveled. As long as the screener isn't moving or using his elbows, it is not a foul on the screener.

On the other hand, running through a screen constitutes a player control foul......usually.

[KWICD]

This rule book must have been written by the Government. It has enough loop holes to always cover the officials call.

[cnice11]

So, if this isnt a charge, how do you rule when its inadvertent? If something like that happened, everyone could argue it was inadvertent or say I didnt see him. Just a lot of gray area there, stupid rule.

[Matt Dillon]

It seems, to me, this situation is more or less a judgement call by the refs.

[Mr. T]

Why would Bradley's screen be considered a blind screen (which is what this rule is about)? He isn't behind the guy, he is at or in front of his shoulders isn't he?

[AugustaDan]

I agree that the play should have been for Bradley to come down to the baseline to receive the ball and Porter should have thrown it to him. That takes much of the judgment from the hands of the ref. It's hard for me to believe that this is such a standard ploy, but it's never been modified like that.

I have this vision in my head of Pitino guarding the inbounds pass, Duke calling timeout and setting up this play instead of the one they ran, getting the foul call, and all the UK fans standing up and saying, apparently, "good call ref!"

[matt colvin]

Why would Bradley's screen be considered a blind screen (which is what this rule is about)? He isn't behind the guy, he is at or in front of his shoulders isn't he?

That's what I thought. I don't like how the rule is written, either, as it leaves too much room for interpretation.

[lighthouse]

This will explain the whole situation, I hope. I'm in contact with a rules interpretor, and will report his findings as soon as I hear back from him.

Rule 4,

Section 34. Hands and Arms, Use of

Art. 3.
A player shall be permitted to hold his or her hands and arms in
front of his or her face or body for protection in a recoil action rather than

a pushing action.


a. To absorb force from imminent contact by an opponent; or
b. When that player, who has set a blind screen, is about to be run into
by the player being screened.

The above explains what Bradley could do.

Section 38. Incidental Contact

Art. 4.

A player who is screened within his or her visual field shall be
expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or avoiding the screener.


Section 57. Screen



Art. 1.

A screen is legal action by any player, offensive or defensive, with
or without the ball, which, without causing contact, delays or prevents an

opponent from reaching a desired position.

Art. 2.




In establishing and maintaining legal screening tactics, the
screener:

a. Shall stay within his or her vertical plane with a stance approximately

shoulder width apart and shall not lean into the path of an opponent or

extend hips into that path, even though the feet are stationary.






b. Shall not be required to face in any particular direction at any time.

There are only 2 situations where time and distance apply. One is an airborne shooter, and the other is when a player is moving down court while looking back to receive the ball. Prior to catching the ball, the defense must give the offense necessary time and distance to avoid a charge, and that is usually 2 steps. This is the best description of a blind screen.

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

A player who is screened within his or her visual field shall be
expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or avoiding the screener.


So if the screener isn't in a player's "field of vision" he doesn't have to avoid the screener. Right?

[westtncat]

we have all seen several times a defender get absolutely leveld by a "hard screen." usually in the backcourt when the point guard is bringing the ball up the floor. If that is not a foul, then how is leveling the screener a call.
Being a defender and getting leveled by a screener with planted feet is not the same as being a defender and leveling the screener. Bradly was hit hard and slid across the floor several feet. If attempting to do this and do that constitutes no foul then whos to say that a guy should ever go around a screen? Just run through a screen let them prove you saw it, if you dont see it contact is allowed right? Man if I was a coach I would completely level some players on the other teamn. By this rule and standard it seems ok.

[BamaCat86]

There are only 2 situations where time and distance apply. One is an airborne shooter, and the other is when a player is moving down court while looking back to receive the ball. Prior to catching the ball, the defense must give the offense necessary time and distance to avoid a charge prior to , and that is usually 2 steps. This is the best description of a blind screen.

This was clearly not the case with Mr. Jackson.

[wildcat537]

Foul...period!

[countrycat]

Foul...period!
Zactly right. Way to go Lighthouse.

[Realist]

It was a play designed for one purpose and that was to draw a foul. The refs have seen it numerous times because its been run for years. The ref has to decide if it was a flop, a legitimate foul, or incidental contact.

Bradley has been flopping all year when on offense and I'd bet the refs are tired of it. I certainly am. I wouldn't have called it either. IMHO he should have gotten an Oscar for a great acting job because it looked pretty convincing but it was still a flop.

If Duke had beaten KY with that play instead of the long pass and Laettner's shot KY fans would still be up in arms.

It wasn't a foul, get over it.

[tauzreborn]

It was a play designed for one purpose and that was to draw a foul. The refs have seen it numerous times because its been run for years. The ref has to decide if it was a flop, a legitimate foul, or incidental contact.

Bradley has been flopping all year when on offense and I'd bet the refs are tired of it. I certainly am. I wouldn't have called it either. IMHO he should have gotten an Oscar for a great acting job because it looked pretty convincing but it was still a flop.

If Duke had beaten KY with that play instead of the long pass and Laettner's shot KY fans would still be up in arms.

It wasn't a foul, get over it.


You need to watch this play again.

[wildcatdon]

To Realist and the original poster...It was a foul...plain and simple..I have been a ref for 35 yrs and would not have hesitated to call that foul..It was that easy to call..I cant believe this is still being rehashed..It was a simple call to make and they blew it,plain and simple...Hank Nichols is covering for his man and so is boudreaux...let it go..its over...

[Realist]

To Realist and the original poster...It was a foul...plain and simple..I have been a ref for 35 yrs and would not have hesitated to call that foul..It was that easy to call..I cant believe this is still being rehashed..It was a simple call to make and they blew it,plain and simple...Hank Nichols is covering for his man and so is boudreaux...let it go..its over...

No, you and the rest of the UK fans who keep whining about it need to let it go. I thought it was a correct call. UK lost for WAY more reasons than one call. UK also benefited from missed calls. Given your 35 years of experience would you have called Ramon Harris's travel on the inbounds pass in OT? It was more cut and dried than the play being discussed to death.

[Buck_Naked]

Right call or wrong call, good call or bad call, the fact remains that with even a decent effort from the Cats in Atlanta we wouldn't be having this discussion. We allowed Georgia hang around long enough and close enough to be in a position to win the game at the end, and they burned us, period.

This is old news, and we've already "chewed this cabbage" multiple times.

That season's over, the new one starts on Thursday; let's focus our attention on the CATS pounding Marquette!!!!


(just my $0.02 worth)

[Realist]

Right call or wrong call, good call or bad call, the fact remains that with even a decent effort from the Cats in Atlanta we wouldn't be having this discussion. We allowed Georgia hang around long enough and close enough to be in a position to win the game at the end, and they burned us, period.

This is old news, and we've already "chewed this cabbage" multiple times.

That season's over, the new one starts on Thursday; let's focus our attention on the CATS pounding Marquette!!!!


(just my $0.02 worth)

Exactly. The topic of discussion should be on WHY the Cats looked like something the dog drug in. Poor execution, poor effort, poor shooting.

[allnet]

It was a play designed for one purpose and that was to draw a foul. The refs have seen it numerous times because its been run for years. The ref has to decide if it was a flop, a legitimate foul, or incidental contact.

Bradley has been flopping all year when on offense and I'd bet the refs are tired of it. I certainly am. I wouldn't have called it either. IMHO he should have gotten an Oscar for a great acting job because it looked pretty convincing but it was still a flop.

If Duke had beaten KY with that play instead of the long pass and Laettner's shot KY fans would still be up in arms.

It wasn't a foul, get over it.

This wasn't a flop. Far from it.

Yes, it was a play designed to draw a foul, as are so many plays in basketball, and their validity is backed by the repeated foul calls refs make on these same plays. Just because of it's design and goal, and it's success at the same, doesn't excuse the end result of this type of play, a foul.

Duke??????? WTH???????????

[Rockober]

Exactly. The topic of discussion should be on WHY the Cats looked like something the dog drug in. Poor execution, poor effort, poor shooting.

The whole Atlanta thing was bizarre. Kids didn't get to bed until the wee hours, different venue, etc. UK started off rediculously slow and that can happen. But to say poor effort is flat out wrong! This team fought hard the whole time and played a team that ended up winning the whole tourney.

Sure the CATS could have played better but lack of effort was not one of them. A lucky prayer shot with 2 seconds left from a kid who had not make a three in 5 or 6 games did them in.

[Buck_Naked]

The whole Atlanta thing was bizarre. Kids didn't get to bed until the wee hours, different venue, etc. UK started off rediculously slow and that can happen. But to say poor effort is flat out wrong! This team fought hard the whole time and played a team that ended up winning the whole tourney.

Sure the CATS could have played better but lack of effort was not one of them. A lucky prayer shot with 2 seconds left from a kid who had not make a three in 5 or 6 games did them in.

Well, everybody knows the old saying about excuses, and don't forget that the Georgia players endured the exact same adversity.

Sorry, but I have to go with Realist on this one. Other than the Vandy debacle, that was easily the worst effort by this team during conference play this season.

But again, that season's over...let's focus on beating Marquette!

[DerbyCityGlobetrotter]

Exactly. The topic of discussion should be on WHY the Cats looked like something the dog drug in. Poor execution, poor effort, poor shooting.

If you are unclear on how to start a new thread with a new topic, I am sure one of the administrators would be happy to help you.:cool:

[Realist]

If you are unclear on how to start a new thread with a new topic, I am sure one of the administrators would be happy to help you.:cool:

I'm aware of how to start a new thread. Thanks for kindly pointing out that the administrators can help. I'll be sure to contact them if I need assistance.

[AugustaDan]

[/b]

This wasn't a flop. Far from it.

Yes, it was a play designed to draw a foul, as are so many plays in basketball, and their validity is backed by the repeated foul calls refs make on these same plays. Just because of it's design and goal, and it's success at the same, doesn't excuse the end result of this type of play, a foul.

Duke??????? WTH???????????
In fairness to Realist, I brought up the Duke play. You can direct your ire my way.

[Radiated]

Katz on officiating.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney08/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3299270

Gottlieb also has an article, but it is on the ESPN premium.

[lighthouse]

Katz on officiating.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney08/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3299270

Gottlieb also has an article, but it is on the ESPN premium.

I think that's a fair assessment of today's officiating. I would add one thing I've noticed and reported several times. It seems to me like some, but certainly not all, veteran officials have a cocky attitude about them and you can see it in their body language. The humbleness(is that a word) and pride has left some of them, and it's began to trickle down. Officiating is a privilege not a right.

[matt colvin]

ajpSZkTwo_c