Stans/WKy vs Wiscy last night (link)

[msugolf]

https://twitter.com/gottliebshow/status/941171507820032000

Looks like Stans is still getting shafted by the refs. I would?ve lost my s**t if I had been the coach.

[Liverpooldawg]

Stans probabaly started seeing blue uniforms with Kentucky on them after that, wow.

[mparkerfd20]

Uh looks like they got it right. The guy had his feet planted.

[Liverpooldawg]

Uh looks like they got it right. The guy had his feet planted.

He did get his feet planted. You didn’t watch long enough and Brando confused you talking about a charge. It took me a while to figure it out too. They called that a block and it sent Whisky to the line with no time left.

[confucius say]

He did get his feet planted. You didn’t watch long enough and Brando confused you talking about a charge. It took me a while to figure it out too. They called that a block and it sent Whisky to the line with no time left.

No. They called it a charge. The initial call was a block on the guy in white (Wisconsin), but they overturned it somehow and called it a charge on the guy in red (WK). Regardless of what it was, not sure how you change that call. It's not reviewable and the ref who called the block was standing right by it.

[thf24]

I think this might actually be right. Seems very odd to call a block on the player who initiated the contact, but I'm not positive a charge/offensive foul is in play in an in-bounds situation like this.

[thf24]

No. They called it a charge. The initial call was a block on the guy in white (Wisconsin), but they overturned it somehow and called it a charge on the guy in red (WK). Regardless of what it was, not sure how you change that call. It's not reviewable and the ref who called the block was standing right by it.

They actually called it a block on the WKU player. Difference is that the block gave Wisconsin free throws, while a charge would not have. As I said in my previous post, it looks like it should have been a charge, but a charge call may not have been on the table in that situation.

[confucius say]

They actually called it a block on the WKU player. Difference is that the block gave Wisconsin free throws, while a charge would not have. As I said in my previous post, it looks like it should have been a charge, but a charge call may not have been on the table in that situation.

Ok. I was wondering why Wisconsin got free throws on a player control foul (charge). I've never seen a "block" called on a defensive player for running through a screen. What is that normally called?

[confucius say]

I think this might actually be right. Seems very odd to call a block on the player who initiated the contact, but I'm not positive a charge/offensive foul is in play in an in-bounds situation like this.

Right. I've never seen a charge called on a defensive player, so it's not a charge, but is it called a block when a defender runs through a screen?