OK - I looked it up. Here's the language:He clearly did not see the screen. How can you avoid running into or over a guy that you don't see?
The whole point of setting a screen is to hold up the defender. There is contact on them all the time. How hard the contact is has nothing to do with whether it's a foul or not. It just isn't. If you don't believe me, check the rule book.
Look. It doesn't matter if he saw the screen. If that were the standard you could close your eyes and run people over and claim you didn't see them. It was a foul. Other calls have been questionable. That one was clear. And the refs happen to agree.
Welp, we got a break on that foul on Ish.
Well, kudos to Dunn today. Almost single handedly (no pun intended) has kept us in this one.
Great coaching the last two halves, for sure.Gotta give JC some x and o credit this half. The press and the zone have both helped us get stops and points.
Gotta love a 60 year old woman in a top hat waving pom pom wands and screaming at the opposition as they file into the locker room for haltime.
Look. I gave you the rule. You can't knock guys over. Corhen clearly knocks him down. Foul. The refs called it. There have been plenty of questionable calls. But that wasn't one.If that's the standard for a foul on a screen then there should have already been at least a half dozen of them called this game. At least.
And if you think that the ref agreeing means that it was called correctly, then how can you possibly think that any calls were questionable? After all, that's what the ref thought.
She's in the student section. She's a graduate student.
And from Corhen - 2 pts, 0 rebounds so far.We could use some more production from the bench, especially if the foul trouble continues.
24 minutes, 2 points, 1-2 from the field, 1 rebound, 1 assist.
I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't become the one on five stuff.I'd expect Jaland to come alive this half. It wasn't a good first one for him.