Main Menu
collapse

Resources

Recent Posts

2024-2025 Team Rankings by UWW2MU
[Today at 11:16:12 AM]


With college athletes getting paid, cost of watching them play is going up by Billy Hoyle
[Today at 10:25:35 AM]


George Mason at the Al by Uncle Rico
[Today at 09:29:52 AM]


That'll do by Elonsmusk
[Today at 09:15:25 AM]


2024-25 Big East TV Guide by Mr. Nielsen
[Today at 12:02:41 AM]


2024-25 NCAA Basketball Thread by TAMU, Knower of Ball
[November 05, 2024, 08:20:03 PM]


[Cracked Sidewalks] George Mason Preview by mug644
[November 05, 2024, 06:40:46 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


#UnleashSean

Horrendous call to give Wisconsin the win. Absolutely awful.

Tugg Speedman

That is what it takes Bucky to beat a middling C-USA at home.

Golden Avalanche

That ending was a disgrace to the human race. 

cheese ball chaser

See, hate on Rowsey all you want but #TheThing is still (mostly) an actual foul. Davison just flops all the time, and everyone knows it. Even the announcers have been calling him out. I can't stand that guy.

JWags85

That was one of the most pathetic underhanded ways to eek out a win.  The gleeful celebration of that as a "heady" basketball play is nauseating.

Dr. Blackheart

NCAA officiating is a joke but less so than the organization that runs it.

MUfan12

Just a trash call. I give their coach credit, I would have chased the refs off the floor after that.

Glad UW figured out how to shoot tonight and not Saturday.

BrewCity83

I watched that disgrace of an ending too.  Can you imagine if the South-Central-Wisconsin Badgers had beaten MU on that call? 
The shaka sign, sometimes known as "hang loose", is a gesture of friendly intent often associated with Hawaii and surf culture.

Benny B

That very well might be the cheapest way to draw a foul, but does anyone dispute that it was a foul?

If the in-bounder has the run of the baseline, you can set a pick on whoever's guarding the in-bounder, no.  Maybe not in an end-of-game-tie-score situation like this, but I'd be willing to bet that even MU has tried it at least once or twice in the past five years.

A cheap win is still a win, and it's good for our RPI.
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 08, 2015, 07:10:33 PM
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

wadesworld

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2017, 12:30:00 PM
That very well might be the cheapest way to draw a foul, but does anyone dispute that it was a foul?

If the in-bounder has the run of the baseline, you can set a pick on whoever's guarding the in-bounder, no.  Maybe not in an end-of-game-tie-score situation like this, but I'd be willing to bet that even MU has tried it at least once or twice in the past five years.

A cheap win is still a win, and it's good for our RPI.

I have never, in my entire life, seen a player raise his hands above his head while setting a pick.  That is, until last night, I guess.

mu03eng

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2017, 12:30:00 PM
That very well might be the cheapest way to draw a foul, but does anyone dispute that it was a foul?

If the in-bounder has the run of the baseline, you can set a pick on whoever's guarding the in-bounder, no.  Maybe not in an end-of-game-tie-score situation like this, but I'd be willing to bet that even MU has tried it at least once or twice in the past five years.

A cheap win is still a win, and it's good for our RPI.

What foul is it? It's neither block nor charge.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

GGGG

Quote from: mu03eng on December 14, 2017, 12:44:13 PM
What foul is it? It's neither block nor charge.


A defender cannot displace a person setting the pick.  To do so is a team foul, and since UW was in the double bonus, two FTs were correctly awarded.

It was not a player control foul, which would have resulted in another in-bounds situation, since the WKU player was not in control of the ball.

mikekinsellaMVP

#12
Quote from: Sultan of Kookiness on December 14, 2017, 12:50:13 PM

A defender cannot displace a person setting the pick.  To do so is a team foul, and since UW was in the double bonus, two FTs were correctly awarded.

It was not a player control foul, which would have resulted in another in-bounds situation, since the WKU player was not in control of the ball.

Per NCAA rules, "A player who is screened outside his visual field may make inadvertent contact with the screener.  Such contact shall be incidental, provided that the screener is not displaced when he has the ball."

Otherwise, there'd be much more incentive for a forward/center to flop when setting a blind screen on a small guard, rather than leveling them like we see every once in a while.

You should only get the call if the defender sees the screen and fails to prevent contact.

JWags85

Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on December 14, 2017, 01:13:57 PM

You should only get the call if the defender sees the screen and fails to prevent contact.

Agreed, not to mention he basically slide underneath him.  The WKU player hadn't even taken a full step before contact, there was nothing he could do.  It was just a garbage call all around.

GGGG

I'm not saying it was a good call.  I am saying that the rule was applied correctly.

MerrittsMustache

I've probably seen that sort of play run a hundred times. The other 99 times were no calls.

Davison is the ultimate flop artist. There was a play against MU when Howard was called for pushing off. He did push off and the proper call was made. However, Davison flopped like he had received a two-handed shove from Ndamukong Suh. If the NCAA wants to crack down on flopping (I'm not sure that they do) then the ref should be instructed to swallow the whistle in that situation...or he should do so on his own just on general principle  ;)


GoldenZebra

Hated Davison the moment he flopped vs Markus and man do I hate him even more. sheehs he is gonna be insufferable to watch for the next 4 years.

Benny B

Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on December 14, 2017, 01:13:57 PM
Per NCAA rules, "A player who is screened outside his visual field may make inadvertent contact with the screener.  Such contact shall be incidental, provided that the screener is not displaced when he has the ball."

Otherwise, there'd be much more incentive for a forward/center to flop when setting a blind screen on a small guard, rather than leveling them like we see every once in a while.

You should only get the call if the defender sees the screen and fails to prevent contact.

I went back and watched the replay again in slow-mo... if that's the rule, then I definitely see the counterargument.

Purely speculation, but I'm going to guess that somewhere in a situation manual somewhere there's going to be a scenario that addresses this scenario... particularly the "field of vision" thing.  I'm wondering if there might even be something along the lines of a "presumptive" field of vision in the direction the defender is moving.  Just like there's a presumption that - even if physically possible to catch the ball and shoot in less than 0.3 seconds - by rule, a minimum 0.3 seconds must elapse on an in-bounds play... perhaps there's a presumption that the player's "field of vision" includes the direction he is moving.  Otherwise, defenders could look backwards over their shoulders as they're running forward and just start bowling players over without consequence.

Listen, I'm not going out of my way to defend Bucky here... all I'm saying is that - whether cheap or the cheapest - under the rules, calling a foul was not incorrect.
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 08, 2015, 07:10:33 PM
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

mikekinsellaMVP

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2017, 01:51:52 PM
I went back and watched the replay again in slow-mo... if that's the rule, then I definitely see the counterargument.

Purely speculation, but I'm going to guess that somewhere in a situation manual somewhere there's going to be a scenario that addresses this scenario... particularly the "field of vision" thing.  I'm wondering if there might even be something along the lines of a "presumptive" field of vision in the direction the defender is moving.  Just like there's a presumption that - even if physically possible to catch the ball and shoot in less than 0.3 seconds - by rule, a minimum 0.3 seconds must elapse on an in-bounds play... perhaps there's a presumption that the player's "field of vision" includes the direction he is moving.  Otherwise, defenders could look backwards over their shoulders as they're running forward and just start bowling players over without consequence.

Listen, I'm not going out of my way to defend Bucky here... all I'm saying is that - whether cheap or the cheapest - under the rules, calling a foul was not incorrect.

Further reason that I wouldn't want to be an official.  To add to your point, if your teammates are calling out the back screen to you, can you lower your shoulder and level the screener as long as you don't look back for him?

I chalk "field of vision" up to a judgement call, like the block/charge.  In my mind, this one is pretty easy — Davison gives the guy a half step and his head never has the opportunity to come around and find the screen.

The other question of consequence is whether Davison provided adequate space for the defender setting the back screen, since it's called out as a "Major Officiating Concern" in the 17-18 rule book.  Imagine the exploding heads in the Kohl if that call is an illegal screen.

Spotcheck Billy

Quote from: Sultan of Kookiness on December 14, 2017, 01:25:14 PM
I'm not saying it was a good call.  I am saying that the rule was applied correctly.

I didn't record it but did see in the paper this morning that the WKU coach stated Davison had a foot out of bounds which he felt made it an illegal screen. I didn't notice that last night.

MerrittsMustache

Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on December 14, 2017, 02:30:39 PM
I didn't record it but did see in the paper this morning that the WKU coach stated Davison had a foot out of bounds which he felt made it an illegal screen. I didn't notice that last night.

No great angle but the 1:17 mark probably gives the best look. It sure appears that his toe is on the line but, if we're going with NFL replay rules, there's no clear, definitive evidence.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2017/12/14/16775562/wisconsin-badgers-basketball-western-kentucky-charge-call-to-win-game


Benny B

Granted, this was based on the 2015-16 season, but apparently the "field of vision" rule is by no means one of obscurity in officiating circles, but it's not exactly well-enforced...  According to the NCAA's 2016 Men's Basketball Rules Survey, the consensus was that NCAA officials 'almost always' or 'often' made the correct application of the rules during the 15-16 season pertaining to "in the field of vision of the defender" screens 65.3% of the time; however, there was no consensus on whether the "not in the field of vision of the defender" rule was correctly applied.

Other rules almost always or often applied correctly:
Use of the monitor by officials - 76.9%
Illegal contact that occurred in the restricted area under the basket - 72.7%
Verticality rule requiring the defense to be in legal guarding position and having arms straight above the head - 66.2%
Swinging of the elbow - 58.9%
Dislodging an offensive post player by the defense - 54%

Rules with no consensus on correctness of application:
Traveling
Rebounding fouls during FT attempts
Dislodging of defensive players by an offensive post player
Team not being ready to play immediately following the second warning horn ending a timeout
Coaching box

If you have a few brain cells to kill, check it out...
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016DIMBB_Survey_Executive_Summary_20160518.pdf
Quote from: LittleMurs on January 08, 2015, 07:10:33 PM
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Dr. Blackheart

Topper's Buddy is still sitting there with his arm's folded in bewilderment...

mikekinsellaMVP

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 14, 2017, 02:51:16 PM
No great angle but the 1:17 mark probably gives the best look. It sure appears that his toe is on the line but, if we're going with NFL replay rules, there's no clear, definitive evidence.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2017/12/14/16775562/wisconsin-badgers-basketball-western-kentucky-charge-call-to-win-game

"In establishing a legal screen, the screener shall stay within his vertical plane with a stance in which the inside of the screener's feet is no wider than shoulder with apart."

You can see in the replay that Davison's toes are basically on the corner of the key and the edge of the restricted circle.  That's 5 1/2 feet.  You can see his heels are well outside his shoulders.  If this were another freshman just down I-94, I'm 95% sure he gets called for an illegal screen as he has been all season.

I know I'm getting in the weeds, but it's driving me nuts that people are calling this a "heady play" when the window for successful execution (at least by definition) is very small and Davison did a number of things wrong.

barfolomew

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 14, 2017, 03:24:12 PM
Topper's Buddy is still sitting there with his arm's folded in bewilderment...

I would definitely have my costume for Halloween next year, if it wasn't for having to purchase and wear badger gear.
Relationes Incrementum Victoria

Previous topic - Next topic