Wisconsin vs wku

[#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? 

[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.

[wadesworld]

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]

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.

[GGGG]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

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]

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]

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

[Dr. Blackheart]

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

[mikekinsellaMVP]

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]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

“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.

Now known widely as the Larry Craig Rule

[Dr. Blackheart]

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

You gotta love too that he tucks in his quarter zip...

[wadesworld]

Seriously, who has ever set a screen with their hands above their head?

[Jockey]

Seriously, who has ever set a screen with their hands above their head?

I don't get why everyone is so upset. It is UW versus a mid-major.

Who cares who won or how?

BTW, this is a serious question. Why do MU fans care about this? Sometimes I think it's an inferiority complex and I don't understand why.

[wadesworld]

I don't get why everyone is so upset. It is UW versus a mid-major.

Who cares who won or how?

BTW, this is a serious question. Why do MU fans care about this? Sometimes I think it's an inferiority complex and I don't understand why.

So which of these fanbases have the inferiority complex, Louisville or Kentucky fans?  Duke or North Carolina fans?

Sometimes fans of one college basketball team don't like other college basketball teams and enjoy seeing them lose.

[#UnleashSean]

I don't get why everyone is so upset. It is UW versus a mid-major.

Who cares who won or how?

BTW, this is a serious question. Why do MU fans care about this? Sometimes I think it's an inferiority complex and I don't understand why.

I was upset that I got robbed from seeing a great finish to an exciting game. Also west Kentucky is actually good this year.

[Jockey]

So which of these fanbases have the inferiority complex, Louisville or Kentucky fans?  Duke or North Carolina fans?

Sometimes fans of one college basketball team don't like other college basketball teams and enjoy seeing them lose.

I understand that Wades. I love seeing ND, tOSU, Michigan and a few others lose as often as possible.

I just think that while things are cyclical, there is no reason as an MU fan to feel inferior. I totally understand people being glad when UW loses. I don't see a need to gloat. Or to make excuses when they win - and, yes it was one of the worst game deciding calls I have ever seen.

I

[Benny B]

Seriously, who has ever set a screen with their hands above their head?

A midget window installer?

[JWags85]

I don't get why everyone is so upset. It is UW versus a mid-major.

Who cares who won or how?

BTW, this is a serious question. Why do MU fans care about this? Sometimes I think it's an inferiority complex and I don't understand why.

To be fair, it was talked about a decent amount on the internet today in college basketball circles outside Marquette/Wisconsin.  And Wisconsin's reputation for flopping and playing sheisty isn't limited to just Marquette bias, so others thought it was absurd.

For example this is an East Coast dude with no ties to UW.
https://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/we-witnessed-one-of-the-worst-calls-in-college-basketball-to-end-the-wisconsinwku-game

[mu03eng]

A midget window installer?

I enjoyed this more than I should have.

[StillAWarrior]

Seriously, who has ever set a screen with their hands above their head?

It'll be interesting to see if other players start using this new "X Man" pick.  Arms spread above the head and legs spread wide.

Seriously, I think they would have called two fouls on Theo for that pick.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

I don't get why everyone is so upset. It is UW versus a mid-major.

Who cares who won or how?

BTW, this is a serious question. Why do MU fans care about this? Sometimes I think it's an inferiority complex and I don't understand why.

Admittedly, this probably would have slipped under my radar if it weren’t either Bucky or a Big East team.  But I think it’s an interesting intersection of rules, strategy, and officiating.

As the rules are currently written, this play is a terrible strategy.  To successfully get the defensive foul you’re looking for, you need a) the screener to set a legal screen, and b) the defender to make contact with the screen within his field of vision.  We can argue the semantics of what “field of vision” entails, but contact on a blind screen is very deliberately and prominently placed in the definition of “incidental contact” (Rule 4.21.5).  So right off the bat, this is a bad idea — the premise is built on the defender not seeing the screen, which means by rule the contact is not a foul.

To make things worse, assuming the collision happens and your screener ends up on his back with no call, you’ve now reduced your number of inbounding options from 4 to 3 while eating up 1-2 seconds of a five-second count.

On top of that, if the screen is set illegally (still moving, feet too wide, foot out of bounds, not providing a defender with adequate space once the screen is set), you’ve just put the ball in your opponent’s hands under their hoop with two seconds left in a tie ball game.  That alone should outweigh any incentive to run this play.

What I really thought was interesting was the post game presser where Davison said they practiced the play because they knew the foul would be called.  So either Gard doesn’t know the rule, or he’s relying on “how the game is called.”  If it’s the latter, it reinforces what a lot of people don’t like about NCAA officiating, and is a prime example for why the NCAA needs to simplify the rules, use full-time refs, or both.