Woodard foul with 6:18 remaining

[skyvue]

He was whistled for running into Simmons, who was screening him.

I'm not saying it was a bad call, but I am asking for clarification: When does running into a screener qualify as a foul and when doesn't it? It was a pretty major collision, I'll admit, but you see players who are setting a screen take contact all the time. When does it count as a foul?

 

[slappy in OP]

I would say that was called (correctly) for 2 reasons. 1. Simmons was set and did not move and 2. the collision knocked Simmons over. Woodard got the worst of that one, but it looked like it was called correctly to me.

 

[hoopsaustin]

Simmons leaned into it and lowered his shoulder kinda dirty imo.. i would have called it an offensive foul

It's one thing if a defender runs over a valid screen.. it's another when a defender is trying to deck someone. That's not a valid screen

 

[UHsurfer12]

Simmons leaned into it and lowered his shoulder kinda dirty imo.. i would have called it an offensive foul

It's one thing if a defender runs over a valid screen.. it's another when a defender is trying to deck someone. That's not a valid screen

If I saw a guy running at me as I was setting a screen I'd do the same thing as Simmons. Pretty natural reaction to try and minimize the hit you'll take. Nothing dirty just preparing for a collision.

 

[skyvue]

I still don't have a handle on what made that qualify as a foul but not screen-related contact that occurs a dozen or more times a game, game in and game out.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I would say that was called (correctly) for 2 reasons. 1. Simmons was set and did not move and 2. the collision knocked Simmons over. Woodard got the worst of that one, but it looked like it was called correctly to me.

Would not necessarily disagree with the call but Simmons did drop his shoulder and that is a no, no.

 

[usedtobe1]

It was an easy call. If not, then you could have big guys taking out anyone who sets a screen. You would have rebounders going over the back of anyone blocking them out. How was that any different than taking a charge? It's the same call. If a player is set, you can't hit them with excessive force. It can only be incidental contact.

Simmons was set, and Woodard initiated the contact.

 

[WTSooner]

Simmons was trying to protect himself. He saw that Woodard was going to collide with him, and the height difference was going to make it awkward. That is why he "dropped down" before the contact.

 

[jackson_supersooner]

The refs don't call a foul on that 99.9% of the time if the screener doesn't get knocked down. From my years of watching and playing it's always been a foul only if you knock him down. Kinda think of it as a defensive charge. If the screener is set and you make the contact and knock them down it will be on you. If he isn't set then it's a moving screen. If he is set and knocks you down...no call.

 

[sooner 1234]

Live I thought it was a bad call . When the replayed it was obvious they got it right .

 

[AdaSooner]

It was an easy call. If not, then you could have big guys taking out anyone who sets a screen. You would have rebounders going over the back of anyone blocking them out. How was that any different than taking a charge? It's the same call. If a player is set, you can't hit them with excessive force. It can only be incidental contact.

Simmons was set, and Woodard initiated the contact.

Exactly. The key ingredients to making that call are in bold. Size and who gets the worst of the contact have nothing to do with it.

It was a good call.

 

[chuckb]

I thought it was the right call also. Woodard knocked Simmons over and, on the replay, I thought Simmons was set. If Simmons doesn't get knocked over, it's probably a no-call but, with him on the ground, you have to call it. Woodard effectively took him out of the play by running over him.

 

[usedtobe1]

If you disagree with the foul on Woodard, then you must also disagree with the charge on Simmons against Spangler. Ryan was set and Simmons didn't hit him nearly as hard as Woodard hit Simmons. It's the same rule.

I want to make a comment on the officiating yesterday. LSU shot 55 free throws in their game against Georgia earlier this week. KU shot 47 free throws against Kentucky. Yesterday there were only 23 total free throws in the OU/LSU game. They only called 31 total fouls. I appreciated the refs letting them play.

 

[skyvue]

Yesterday there were only 23 total free throws in the OU/LSU game. They only called 31 total fouls. I appreciated the refs letting them play.

I did, too.

Again, I'm not saying it was a bad call; I'm just trying to understand it. Because a screener being set and a defender running into him happens literally thousands of times a season and VERY rarely draws a whistle. I guess it's a matter of degree and with respect to Ada, Simmons falling must have impacted the call.

 

[usedtobe1]

I don't think falling down had anything to do with it. 99.9% of referees would have called that play a foul whether Simmons fell down or not. I'm a fan that wants as close to the action as possible. I want to hear the tennis shoes squeak and the players cuss. Maybe that comes from refereeing 1000's of games. By being in the middle of the game you see and hear a lot of things that you don't notice from television or sitting a ways away from the court.

You hear slaps, see shorts pulled, hear and see bodies collide, hear the trash talking, etc. Each of the 3 refs have an area of the court they watch. They see the plays set up away from the ball. They get a sense of the severity of a collision. They see it and hear it from just a few feet away. Simmons was set. His feet weren't moving. Jordan was running full speed. That was a violent collision and hurt Woodard a lot more than it hurt Simmons. He blindsided himself. The force of the collision was excessive and Woodard initiated it. It was maybe one the 2-3 easiest calls of the game to make.

Honestly, I'm surprised people would question it.

 

[skyvue]

Honestly, I'm surprised people would question it.

Who's questioning it? I'm trying to understand it. Let's just agree that it was the correct call. Given that and given the fact that you see guys get stoned by a set screener all the time with no whistle, why don't those get called?

The only real difference I see is that Simmons fell, so I can only attribute the call to that. It impacted the official's perception of the play.

 

[AdaSooner]

Who's questioning it? I'm trying to understand it. Let's just agree that it was the correct call. Given that and given the fact that you see guys get stoned by a set screener all the time with no whistle, why don't those get called?

The only real difference I see is that Simmons fell, so I can only attribute the call to that. It impacted the official's perception of the play.

To answer your question about why there aren't more whistles when screens are set, officials try to ignore what they see as "incidental contact." That's a good thing, because if the whistle blew every time there was contact between two players, it would disrupt the flow of the game too much.

The contact between Woodard and Simmons was too severe to ignore. That call would have been made 99% of the time by any officiating crew worth their salt.

 

[slappy in OP]

I definitely feel that both players getting knocked over played a significant factor in the call to be made. Simmons getting knocked over while Jordan crumpled to the floor showed this was worthy of a call IMO.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Simmons was set, and Woodard initiated the contact.

But that is the definition of a screen. I'm with the op. It was a perfect screen. Don't see how a foul was called


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I don't think falling down had anything to do with it. 99.9% of referees would have called that play a foul whether Simmons fell down or not. I'm a fan that wants as close to the action as possible. I want to hear the tennis shoes squeak and the players cuss. Maybe that comes from refereeing 1000's of games. By being in the middle of the game you see and hear a lot of things that you don't notice from television or sitting a ways away from the court.

You hear slaps, see shorts pulled, hear and see bodies collide, hear the trash talking, etc. Each of the 3 refs have an area of the court they watch. They see the plays set up away from the ball. They get a sense of the severity of a collision. They see it and hear it from just a few feet away. Simmons was set. His feet weren't moving. Jordan was running full speed. That was a violent collision and hurt Woodard a lot more than it hurt Simmons. He blindsided himself. The force of the collision was excessive and Woodard initiated it. It was maybe one the 2-3 easiest calls of the game to make.

Honestly, I'm surprised people would question it.

Again. You set a screen expecting contact. He got it.

No call in my book


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk