Virginia Tech vs #3 Villanova Controversial Ending to Regulation | 2020 College Basketball

The end of regulation in the matchup between Villanova and Virginia Tech was pretty strange. After VT took a 64-62 lead with 1.3 seconds left, Villanova got called for an offensive foul on the inbounds pass and the game seemed to be over. However, the refs met to discuss the play and decided to change the call to a foul on Virginia tech, giving Villanova two free throws which allowed them to tie the game and send it to overtime. Thankfully for the Hokies, they were able to control OT and win 81-73 and pull off the upset.

Promo Code for 10% off: Procentral

Make sure to comment suggestions for future videos below. Enjoy!

(All rights go to ESPN, Fox, CBS, Universal Music Group, the NFL, NBA, NCAA & it's broadcasters. I do not own the music and the footage used in this video. No copyright infringement intended. For entertainment purposes only)

#CollegeBasketball

[pschighlights]

Ultimately Virginia Tech ended up winning so this didn’t matter, but it probably would be talked about more if Villanova had ended up winning . Congrats to the Hokies on the upset!

[burgersmoothhighlights]

Don't be a third-ranked team and play VT. They've beat one the past three years!!

[ltdee]

I hate that call but it was the right call you have to pay attention when you’re the guy guarding the auto bombs line for that play

[johnlawlor]

I bet a live bet on the Hokies down 10 points, $100 to win $700, with 10 min to go. Lucky win. Every one's a sweat i tell ya

[Milk]

Garbage call but it doesn’t matter. Tech beat that ass in OT

[ShOrt_RoUnD]

100% correct call. Good on VT for not crumbling but instead winning in OT. Now they’ll be prepared in the future for a similar situation to avoid that foul

[willjeffrey]

Imagine if Villanova had won how crazy this would’ve been

[drumandball]

Shouldn't have been a foul in either direction. That was a good solid screen and the defender didn't do anything dirty, he just didn't see it coming. Screens are a physical part of basketball. Seems pretty simple to me.

[tlanthony]

I like Vils coach after the game. Throwing up some sign of respect for the other team. Nice

[jonnybaze]

Ok so they reversed the call? That was an a great call in real time. The foot was sliding. Good thing Tech won and it didn’t matter in the end.

[Dewey]

Ok I remember him at KSTATE but I cAnt spell his name they said his name many times but we would not have lost to a D2 team it sucks being a Kstate fan this year

[TheCephalon]

In what world would it ever be a foul on VT? How is running into a screen a foul on you. It’s either a moving screen which it wasn’t, or a no foul, which it should have been.

[markdemars]

Well I don't think it's controversial. I think it was the right call.

[maxwellhill]

ngl, I didn’t watch the game, so I was waiting for him too miss the 2nd free throw ☹️😂

[jacksonthompson]

Cheap move by Nova to just draw a foul. Not even a basketball play. Didn’t even set a screen for anyone, just a cheap play to get some free throws. Glad Nova lost.

[kjmartin]

Cheating, i’m the biggest by fan there is, and if they had lost this game i would’ve gone crazy. It took the refs 3 minutes to decide that they pointed the wrong way, such BS

[brendanokane]

I’m a VT fan and it was a great play call by Nova and was definitely a foul on Tech. Not sure what everyone is so mad about

[icandoallthings]

It was a clean screen. Idk how that was not the right call.

[L]

This is taken directly from the NCAA rulebook on screens: "In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact."

Like it or not, that is the rule. I would say that, in this case, the the VT player reacts properly to the contact. Even if the contact is severe, it's still incidental and, therefore, the proper call is a no-call.

The only real question is whether this is a "screen outside the visual field" of the defender (VT). Just because a player isn't looking, doesn't mean it's outside the visual field. If you set a legal screen directly in front of me, but I have my head turned looking behind me, that's still inside my visual field.

To me, there are two critical parts of this play. The first is the position of the screen. It's sort of on the side (which, by rule, is NOT a blind screen) but sort of from behind (which is a blind screen). If I look at the screener's body position, his head is behind the VT player and the contact point of the VT player's right shoulder is really the pocket of the screener's right shoulder (1:19). It's not a side screen. The VT player doesn't hit the screener in the sternum/chest. Thus, to me, this is more of a behind screen than a side screen. Thus, I find this to be a blind screen.

The second consideration is whether or not the VT player tried to avoid, lessen, reduce further contact after the initial contact was made. He clearly did. Upon contact, he contorted his body, threw his hands up, and definitely tried to change his path (1:21). He didn't just continue on in a straight line.

Therefore: blind screen + avoidance = no call. Again, the NCAA rules specifically and clearly state that contact and even "severe contact" is expected and do not result in a foul. No call is the right call.

[Nobodyimportant]

It's interesting hearing the announcer compare it to something Brad Davison pulled off for Wisconsin, because my Mom worked at both UW and VT when I was a kid, and I cheer for both the Badgers and the Hokies.