Vcu won a game last week where they were losing with .1 seconds left on a technical called for fans running on the court.
Tonight they won a game where the refs put .4 seconds back on to the clock and then called a foul on the inbounds play giving them two free throws.
The lambs have a massive St. Louis Arch calbiur horseshoe up their arses right now.
Ugh that kind of crap just makes our situation that much more painful.
(02-09-2017 12:32 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]Vcu won a game last week where they were losing with .1 seconds left on a technical called for fans running on the court.
Tonight they won a game where the refs put .4 seconds back on to the clock and then called a foul on the inbounds play giving them two free throws.
The lambs have a massive St. Louis Arch calbiur horseshoe up their arses right now.
Ugh that kind of crap just makes our situation that much more painful.
Can we take solace in that we are rarely if ever close enough at the end to have any chance of our Karma running over our Dogma in that fashion?
(02-09-2017 12:39 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2017 12:32 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]Vcu won a game last week where they were losing with .1 seconds left on a technical called for fans running on the court.
Tonight they won a game where the refs put .4 seconds back on to the clock and then called a foul on the inbounds play giving them two free throws.
The lambs have a massive St. Louis Arch calbiur horseshoe up their arses right now.
Ugh that kind of crap just makes our situation that much more painful.
Can we take solace in that we are rarely if ever close enough at the end to have any chance of our Karma running over our Dogma in that fashion?
Good one!!!!
(02-09-2017 12:32 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]Vcu won a game last week where they were losing with .1 seconds left on a technical called for fans running on the court.
Tonight they won a game where the refs put .4 seconds back on to the clock and then called a foul on the inbounds play giving them two free throws.
The lambs have a massive St. Louis Arch calbiur horseshoe up their arses right now.
Ugh that kind of crap just makes our situation that much more painful.
It makes me sick. I hate VCU with a passion.
I'm glad they are doing it now and not in March.
They will be playing in March, no question.
I just watched the end of that game. was that a questionalable call? His feet looked set, but are you allowed to set your feet like that with one foot out of bounds?
Even if your feet are set (and even if you are allowed to set out of bounds, which I'm not sure of), screening rules require that the defender be given "ample time" to avoid the screen, which he clearly was not given.
(02-09-2017 10:25 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Even if your feet are set (and even if you are allowed to set out of bounds, which I'm not sure of), screening rules require that the defender be given "ample time" to avoid the screen, which he clearly was not given.
I don't even think the defender saw him. The VCU guy just ran right up on him and stopped as the defender was defending the in-bounds passer. I would be pissed if the opposing team got bailed out like that at the Ted.
Not trying to defend VCU or anything, but wouldn't the best screen be one that the defender doesn't notice until it's too late? If the defender doesn't notice, he's not allowed to simply run over the screener, he has to find a way around.
(02-09-2017 10:25 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Even if your feet are set (and even if you are allowed to set out of bounds, which I'm not sure of), screening rules require that the defender be given "ample time" to avoid the screen, which he clearly was not given.
Yep, smart play call, but should have been a foul on VCU
(02-09-2017 11:10 AM)odu09 Wrote: [ -> ]Not trying to defend VCU or anything, but wouldn't the best screen be one that the defender doesn't notice until it's too late? If the defender doesn't notice, he's not allowed to simply run over the screener, he has to find a way around.
The defender doesn't have to "see it." But, he would have to be given time to go around it. He was not.
(02-09-2017 11:13 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2017 11:10 AM)odu09 Wrote: [ -> ]Not trying to defend VCU or anything, but wouldn't the best screen be one that the defender doesn't notice until it's too late? If the defender doesn't notice, he's not allowed to simply run over the screener, he has to find a way around.
The defender doesn't have to "see it." But, he would have to be given time to go around it. He was not.
And setting his feet out of bounds is fine? I assume so since it was very obvious.
We did that same play against the Tar Heels at SCOPE when Tom Young was our coach. Look like it worked perfectly but the refs didnt call anything.
(02-09-2017 11:20 AM)mac Wrote: [ -> ]We did that same play against the Tar Heels at SCOPE when Tom Young was our coach. Look like it worked perfectly but the refs didnt call anything.
Dean Smith ran that play in 1975. It's an old trick, for sure. Good on Wade for calling the play, but shame on the official for calling a foul.
(02-09-2017 11:16 AM)ODU_NYG Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2017 11:13 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2017 11:10 AM)odu09 Wrote: [ -> ]Not trying to defend VCU or anything, but wouldn't the best screen be one that the defender doesn't notice until it's too late? If the defender doesn't notice, he's not allowed to simply run over the screener, he has to find a way around.
The defender doesn't have to "see it." But, he would have to be given time to go around it. He was not.
And setting his feet out of bounds is fine? I assume so since it was very obvious.
"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. The guarding position shall be initially established and then maintained inbounds on the playing court."
I've seen some argument on this though so not 100% sure.
There are a couple things I'm sure of though:
It is incidental contact when a player is screened outside of his visual field can made inadvertent contact with the screener.
or
A player shall not:
Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent
cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction
So I think incidental contact should have been called, but you can make a strong case for illegal screen. The worst call is a defensive foul, imo.
(02-09-2017 09:27 AM)mac Wrote: [ -> ]They will be playing in March, no question.
Yeah, but they wouldn't be dancing if the didnt get those two gift fouls with less than a second left each. Then again, they wouldn't be if the Monarchs had taken care of business and MTSU had been able to hold them off too. Lucky bastards. They aren't that good this year.
(02-09-2017 11:22 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2017 11:20 AM)mac Wrote: [ -> ]We did that same play against the Tar Heels at SCOPE when Tom Young was our coach. Look like it worked perfectly but the refs didnt call anything.
Dean Smith ran that play in 1975. It's an old trick, for sure. Good on Wade for calling the play, but shame on the official for calling a foul.
I have seen that play quite a few times, but can say I have never seen the officials oblige like they did this time.
I saw someone on Twitter post today that it was also run by Illinois in the 1989 Final Four. The refs there called it incidental contact. Play on. Illinois lost.