Game 29: Michigan at Ohio State Recap

I’ve always had mixed feelings about the existence of points of emphasis. I’ve never quite bought into the idea that some rules should be emphasized, as I believe all rules should be equally emphasized. You alluded to some officials possibly taking the POE too far, and calling legal screens illegal. That should never happen, but I’ll bet it does on occasion, and that would be wrong. But, I do think that screening being a POE is about the best use of the practice that I’ve seen. If we go back several years to when uncalled illegal screens were a way of life in college ball, it was clear that officials needed to be told to smarten up and start calling them properly. I still don’t see why that has to be specified in the rulebook, but in any case, screening has been significantly cleaned up since that time.

1 Like

That’s nonsense.

Maybe so. However, the only way that could be the case is if a player has 100% control over when he makes a given shot.

I’ve always been of the opinion a player controls how often he will make a shot via talent/skill, but not when. Seems odd to me that a player could 100% control when he makes a shot, and they just decide not to make anywhere near 100% of their shots.

My 2 cents (likely not even worth that much): Points of emphasis are appropriate if they promote something important/worthwhile – e.g., sensitivity to hook and holds (hooks and hold?), throwing elbows and sticking feet under landing players all further player safety. Quality of game/product reasons fall into a lesser category but I can see an argument for perhaps emphasizing certain calls that promote that as well.

I don’t really see what important end is served by emphasizing calling illegal screens – it’s not a player safety matter and, if anything, it seems to me that the quality of the game/product suffers in that it (a) increases ref involvement/foul calls/stoppages of play, (b) favors defense over offense (most fans prefer offense), © is an off-the-ball call which many fans (including me) find extra frustrating since it involves something we’re likely not focusing on, and (d) seems to me (and maybe I’m wrong here - correct me if you disagree) to be highly subjective with tiny, subtle body motions and positioning making the difference between a foul and non-foul. I just watched the videos in the Film Room post and there are instances where, even having the benefit of being able to stop the action, I’m honestly not sure whether a screen was legal or illegal (did the screener slightly jut his hip out or not?), or, in one case, what seemed to me to be a laughably obvious illegal screen that wasn’t called (everyone will be shocked to learn that Kaleb Wesson was involved … and that he pretended like he was the one that got fouled when he ran over our guy).

To clarify: I’m not advocating eliminating the call; just questioning why anyone would feel like it’s something worth emphasizing.

There’s obviously shooting variance in any game, I think using the word “luck” to convey everything about shooting variance is disingenuous.

3 Likes

Washington was not lucky to hit those 3s. Hes a skilled player and can hit all of those shots. But it was unlucky for Michigan to have that happen to them. That’s how I like to think about it

4 Likes

He played exceptionally well is another way to say it.

CJ Walker hitting ALL the mid-range shots? That was lucky. :slight_smile:

1 Like

yup

Yeah, the lucky events were the CJ Walker mid-rangers and the Wesson brothers’ banked threes. Washington is just really good.

1 Like

My guess is that many of us on these forums have played some level of basketball, and some have played many a game. For me, I could tell when I was on, or off. Rarely during a given night could I shoot my way out of being off. On the other hand, some nights I couldn’t miss so I would begin to take lower percentage shots because it was clear I had the hot hand. Calling it luck, because the team recognizes a hot hand and feeds it regularly, it’s just not the way I would describe it. It’s smart basketball to feed somebody who shots are falling. Many of us remember the Michael Jordan game where he gave the camera a “I can’t believe that went in” look because he just heaved up poor shot selection shots because he had such a hot hand, and even he was surprised at some of the shots that fell. It’s not luck when you play above your average, it’s having a great night because everything comes together. You still have to play, catch the ball, take the shots, and make the shots for that to happen. It’s not luck you’re out there playing and it’s not luck you’re getting open, so why is it luck the shots are falling?

2 Likes

POE (now referred to as Major Officiating Concerns, which is a better title) do stem from safety issues (eg.- the hook and hold movement), but also from areas where officials simply haven’t been calling plays as they should be called. Most of this year’s MOC have an over-arching goal of reducing physical play and allowing more freedom of movement. Ensuring that screening is legal falls under that umbrella (as do 6 of the other 8 MOC).

Basic rules sometimes make their way into MOC. This season, traveling is a MOC, and officials are reminded that traveling must be called no matter where on the court it occurs. Specifically stated, “Call the rule as written”. This stems from, among other things, a past practice of allowing more pivot foot latitude on the perimeter than in the post, and college players adopting NBA footwork on off-the-dribble jumpers (eg.- the footwork that X has had trouble perfecting). So, not even close to a safety issue, but one that addresses the quality of play.

1 Like

Luck is a pretty standard word to use to describe the difference between an expected outcome and the actual result. Saying somebody got lucky does not imply they had no control or influence over the outcome, and that’s where I assume the issue is arising from.

Washington is a good shooter, him going 5/7 from three is not some extreme outcome, in fact you would expect that to happen occasionally. Washington going 5/7 from three involves a helluva lot less luck than Teske going 5/7 from three, just the way somebody winning a 1/10 lottery involves a lot less luck than somebody winning the mega millions. The fact that Washington got hot on that given day involves an element of luck because Washington does not have 100% control over when he gets hot.