MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[HopeConvert]

Of the four fouls NVA received, two of them were complete headscratchers, especially that illegal screen. I have not seen a player receive more questionable calls than Nate has. He has had foul trouble all year, and this is a problem, but to these eyes it looks as if there is at least one call a game where the ref is just off his nut. I am not sure how to account for this. One theory would be that they don't know how to ref someone with his size. Another would be that with all the screening and banging he is doing inside (and he does a lot of screening) he is going to get himself into odd positions. Like I said, I just don't know.

Perhaps that illegal screen call was a headscratcher (I haven't gone to the video on that play), but the dude committed multiple illegal screens that weren't called in this game.

I'd be happy to review all the video to assess that claim.

This is a topic I was hoping to discuss. Not as a post-game bickering match but as a matter of getting some insight from people that watch NVA more frequently than me. I was wondering if illegal screens are something that he has been called for frequently or if what I also perceived as a common infraction on his part was a one game deal.

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

2. Krombeen hit a three fairly early in the second half in which NVA interfered with the closeout defender. This was the worst offense that I noticed when watching live.

Sorry for not having time stamps for each event but if any of you with a biased view from the other side have the means to review these two plays, I would be interested in your opinion. I don't like to get too bogged down in the minutiae of single plays but it is worth it considering one player is at the center of it.

I believe I know the first play to which you are referring. The person being'cleared out" was Bryan Powell, who, when behind NVA, as he was, is a little like a starling on the back of a rhino. That's not an illegal screen if Nate happens to step backwards. Indeed, it looks as if he hardly knew Bryan was there.

Conversely, when Nate was called for fouling Bryan on the shot Nate swatted away, presumably hitting Powell with his body, there was actually a Calvin player between them. Not sure how you can be called for hitting a player with your body when someone else is between you and running into you.

[sac]

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this called, it seems if both players are moving in the same direction and no one is using arms to push, it seems ok.  UW-Platteville's big hulk of a center spent the entire NCAA game with Hope doing exactly what NVA did, only he was allowed to do it in the half-court offense and it wasn't called once either.


My recollection is NVA gets an illegal screen every 2 or 3 games. 

[KnightSlappy]

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this called, it seems if both players are moving in the same direction and no one is using arms to push, it seems ok.  UW-Platteville's big hulk of a center spent the entire NCAA game with Hope doing exactly what NVA did, only he was allowed to do it in the half-court offense and it wasn't called once either.


My recollection is NVA gets an illegal screen every 2 or 3 games. 

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this called, it seems if both players are moving in the same direction and no one is using arms to push, it seems ok.  UW-Platteville's big hulk of a center spent the entire NCAA game with Hope doing exactly what NVA did, only he was allowed to do it in the half-court offense and it wasn't called once either.

(This play was at 7:47 in the first half if anyone else is interested in checking it out.)

Section 60
Art. 5. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction
and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall
be responsible for such contact.

So Nate, as the trailing player, is responsible for avoiding any contact here. Any means by which he prevents Powell from achieving/maintaining his desired positioning is a foul.

ziggy's #2 occured at 17:11 in the second half. NVA threw his backside at Haverdink to prevent him from defending Krombeen's three point attempt.

[sac]

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this called, it seems if both players are moving in the same direction and no one is using arms to push, it seems ok.  UW-Platteville's big hulk of a center spent the entire NCAA game with Hope doing exactly what NVA did, only he was allowed to do it in the half-court offense and it wasn't called once either.


My recollection is NVA gets an illegal screen every 2 or 3 games. 

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this called, it seems if both players are moving in the same direction and no one is using arms to push, it seems ok.  UW-Platteville's big hulk of a center spent the entire NCAA game with Hope doing exactly what NVA did, only he was allowed to do it in the half-court offense and it wasn't called once either.

(This play was at 7:47 in the first half if anyone else is interested in checking it out.)

Section 60
Art. 5. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction
and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall
be responsible for such contact.

So Nate, as the trailing player, is responsible for avoiding any contact here. Any means by which he prevents Powell from achieving/maintaining his desired positioning is a foul.

ziggy's #2 occured at 17:11 in the second half. NVA threw his backside at Haverdink to prevent him from defending Krombeen's three point attempt.

I really don't think that rule applies in this case.   Nate was the trailing player and Powell is clearly not a screener.

[gohope]

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this called, it seems if both players are moving in the same direction and no one is using arms to push, it seems ok.  UW-Platteville's big hulk of a center spent the entire NCAA game with Hope doing exactly what NVA did, only he was allowed to do it in the half-court offense and it wasn't called once either.


My recollection is NVA gets an illegal screen every 2 or 3 games. 

There were two occasions that stick out in my mind from Saturday:
1. Krombeen went in for a layup behind NVA who cleared out (not boxed out) the only defender back in transition. The potential illegal screen was mentioned by the broadcast duo. I acknowledge that it would be a tough call for a ref to make but I think it would be hard to argue against it if it was made.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this called, it seems if both players are moving in the same direction and no one is using arms to push, it seems ok.  UW-Platteville's big hulk of a center spent the entire NCAA game with Hope doing exactly what NVA did, only he was allowed to do it in the half-court offense and it wasn't called once either.

(This play was at 7:47 in the first half if anyone else is interested in checking it out.)

Section 60
Art. 5. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction
and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall
be responsible for such contact.

So Nate, as the trailing player, is responsible for avoiding any contact here. Any means by which he prevents Powell from achieving/maintaining his desired positioning is a foul.

ziggy's #2 occured at 17:11 in the second half. NVA threw his backside at Haverdink to prevent him from defending Krombeen's three point attempt.

I really don't think that rule applies in this case.   Nate was the trailing player and Powell is clearly not a screener.

SAC - I'm not sure I would make that assumption so fast regarding player #20. I mean with those magic boots that he has, he just might be able to set a screen on NVA!!         

[KnightSlappy]

(This play was at 7:47 in the first half if anyone else is interested in checking it out.)

Section 60
Art. 5. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction
and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall
be responsible for such contact.

So Nate, as the trailing player, is responsible for avoiding any contact here. Any means by which he prevents Powell from achieving/maintaining his desired positioning is a foul.

ziggy's #2 occured at 17:11 in the second half. NVA threw his backside at Haverdink to prevent him from defending Krombeen's three point attempt.

I really don't think that rule applies in this case.   Nate was the trailing player and Powell is clearly not a screener.

Section 60. 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.

Powell is trying set up in the paint to prevent Krombeen from reaching a desired position (getting to the rim).

[sac]

(This play was at 7:47 in the first half if anyone else is interested in checking it out.)

Section 60
Art. 5. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction
and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall
be responsible for such contact.

So Nate, as the trailing player, is responsible for avoiding any contact here. Any means by which he prevents Powell from achieving/maintaining his desired positioning is a foul.

ziggy's #2 occured at 17:11 in the second half. NVA threw his backside at Haverdink to prevent him from defending Krombeen's three point attempt.

I really don't think that rule applies in this case.   Nate was the trailing player and Powell is clearly not a screener.

Section 60. 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.

Powell is trying set up in the paint to prevent Krombeen from reaching a desired position (getting to the rim).

Powell is still moving at first contact, never establishes position in the lane, therefore never becoming a 'screener' as defined in the rules.   When he finally does stop its beyond the basket and NVA turns his back and becomes the offensive screener.   Watching it again I don't even think its close to foul.  NVA's contact near the FT line is a continuation of motion by both players toward the baseline.

I don't see any argument from Calvin's bench at all either, again I just don't think I've ever seen this called.

[KnightSlappy]

(This play was at 7:47 in the first half if anyone else is interested in checking it out.)

Section 60
Art. 5. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction
and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall
be responsible for such contact.

So Nate, as the trailing player, is responsible for avoiding any contact here. Any means by which he prevents Powell from achieving/maintaining his desired positioning is a foul.

ziggy's #2 occured at 17:11 in the second half. NVA threw his backside at Haverdink to prevent him from defending Krombeen's three point attempt.

I really don't think that rule applies in this case.   Nate was the trailing player and Powell is clearly not a screener.

Section 60. 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.

Powell is trying set up in the paint to prevent Krombeen from reaching a desired position (getting to the rim).

Powell is still moving at first contact, never establishes position in the lane, therefore never becoming a 'screener' as defined in the rules.   When he finally does stop its beyond the basket and NVA turns his back and becomes the offensive screener.   Watching it again I don't even think its close to foul.  NVA's contact near the FT line is a continuation of motion by both players toward the baseline.

I don't see any argument from Calvin's bench at all either, again I just don't think I've ever seen this called.

So then we go back up to article 5 which deals with two players who are both moving.

[sac]

nullified because Powell never becomes a defensive screener.

[ziggy]

nullified because Powell never becomes a defensive screener.

He's a defender nullified by the motion of an off-ball player.

[KnightSlappy]

nullified because Powell never becomes a defensive screener.

Why? The rules never force him to "stop" or be "set" first. Article five gives him the right to slow down or stop at any point, while forcing NVA to avoid contact with him.

[sac]

nullified because Powell never becomes a defensive screener.

Why? The rules never force him to "stop" or be "set" first. Article five gives him the right to slow down or stop at any point, while forcing NVA to avoid contact with him.

But he never slows down.  When he finally does come to a stop, NVA has established himself as the offensive screener.

[ziggy]

nullified because Powell never becomes a defensive screener.

Why? The rules never force him to "stop" or be "set" first. Article five gives him the right to slow down or stop at any point, while forcing NVA to avoid contact with him.

But he never slows down.  When he finally does come to a stop, NVA has established himself as the offensive screener.

But how is one whose momentum towards the baseline is never halted "established as an offensive screener?"

The problem here is that Powell was never able to make a play on the ball because NVA was in the way without being in a set position.

[sac]

nullified because Powell never becomes a defensive screener.

Why? The rules never force him to "stop" or be "set" first. Article five gives him the right to slow down or stop at any point, while forcing NVA to avoid contact with him.

But he never slows down.  When he finally does come to a stop, NVA has established himself as the offensive screener.

But how is one whose momentum towards the baseline is never halted "established as an offensive screener?"

Nate isn't an offensive screener until motion stops, at which point he's turned his back on Powell.  In other words Nate made a great play to turn his back when he did, otherwise he risked being called for an offensive foul.  At that point in the play it would have been a tough call to make.

Prior to that, they are both in motion in the same direction.  Neither is considered a screener.

Now had Powell put up resistance in the lane you have a case for a foul, but he doesn't, he continues to back pedal towards the baseline.

[ziggy]

nullified because Powell never becomes a defensive screener.

Why? The rules never force him to "stop" or be "set" first. Article five gives him the right to slow down or stop at any point, while forcing NVA to avoid contact with him.

But he never slows down.  When he finally does come to a stop, NVA has established himself as the offensive screener.

But how is one whose momentum towards the baseline is never halted "established as an offensive screener?"

Nate isn't an offensive screener until motion stops, at which point he's turned his back on Powell.  In other words Nate made a great play to turn his back when he did, otherwise he risked being called for an offensive foul.  At that point in the play it would have been a tough call to make.

Prior to that, they are both in motion in the same direction.  Neither is considered a screener.

Now had Powell put up resistance in the lane you have a case for a foul, but he doesn't, he continues to back pedal towards the baseline.

The bold is why I acknowledged that it would have been a difficult call to make. That doesn't mean it wasn't a foul, just not one that you'll get often (or ever). It pains me to say that a flop in the lane rather than backing up as a result of NVA's resistance would have been a foul but that is likely the case.