People keep saying that. Post the video evidence. Was the screener moving the whole time with legs 5 feet apart?
2024 NCAA Tournament Thread
- Thread starter acoustimac
- Start date
I wouldn’t call it a flop, but she sold the contact for sure. There isn’t really an argument though for it to not be an illegal screen regardless of the “flop”
There were people in here all night last night claiming this exact illegal screen was happening throughout the game. I didn’t watch the game (which according to some should disqualify me from posting), but I posted video evidence that it was in fact a textbook illegal screen. All I ask is that if you have issue with it not being called, show me those videos. Otherwise, you are just imagining that they weren’t called, and just want to complain about a correct call because you are mad that Iowa won.
6:03 mark watch Stuelke shes moving the entire time not set. Also it doesn't matter if your feet are shoulder width or "5 feet" apart when it comes to a moving screen.
It was an illegal screen, she was never set. With that said, there were moving screens throughout the game that weren't called. Just call the game with consistency. Holding can be called on every play in football too, when it's called is up to the officials. That's frustrating as well.
Last edited:
Anyone claiming that wasn't a foul is full on Iowa/Clark hate. That was very much a foul. UConn girl was very much moving and threw in her left elbow to boot.
I won't comment on what happened the whole game because I didn't watch the first three quarters, but I had no issue with that call.
I won't comment on what happened the whole game because I didn't watch the first three quarters, but I had no issue with that call.
If you are talking about #45, that is not the same thing. Could it have been called a moving screen? Maybe, but that is not even close to the foul that happened at the end of the game. That does not support the argument “They weren’t calling it all game”. That would be the same as complaining about a hard foul when they didn’t call a touch foul earlier.
I agree this should have been called, but still doesn’t support the argument that they weren’t calling moving screens like the one at the end of the game.
It's about calling a foul if it's a foul.
Or if you're not going to call one, don't call the other.
And the video does show a moving screen from an Iowa player.
Oh so now there are levels of fouls? What happened to “if it’s a foul it’s a foul they should call it.”?
A moving screen is a moving screen. Not every foul is the same.
You asked for a video I showed a literal moving screen. Now you are moving the goal posts saying they aren't the same thing because they aren't equal on the dramatic scale.
But there are degrees of moving screens and how blatant they are. This is like complaining about a hard foul being, but being upset because every touch foul wasn’t called. You could call moving screen on a lot of plays. But they let them get away with ones that are small or don’t impact the play. The one they called at the end was blatant. It was the very definition of a moving screen and should always be called.
One got called and one didn't so it was only 'maybe' one I guess.
I'm also not sure if CC got touched on that 3 and 1 where she acted like she was going to need ankle surgery.
Whatever. It was a very Hok way to win and UConn screwed themselves with bad play to start.
There are different interpretations by the officials. The last play was a foul. And it should be called. But there are some where it is not always easy to know. But that was not the case in the last play. But keep trying to deflect by trying to trap me with words.
An obvious foul should always be called. (That doesn’t always happen.) But the video of the Iowa player posted was not an obvious moving screen.
