Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
But if there is contact sufficient for a block/charge foul, it will be a block due to the RA, even if his purpose was to block the shot.
That said....no foul....outstanding block.
|
You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong...couldn't one argue that if a player is attempting to block the ball, then he's not trying to get an initial legal position for the purpose of drawing a player control/charging foul? I thought the interpretation would be similar to the NBA's in that the RA doesn't apply in the NBA when a player makes a legitimate attempt to defend the shot (and jumping vertically would definitely fit that bill).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP
APG - Help me understand your point by answering these questions. (And I'm not being antagonistic.)
1) Are you suggesting the contact here is not illegal, or is not illegal by virtue of the fact that he was attempting to block the shot?
2) Remove the defender jumping and the shot being actively blocked. Small guard jumping into large post who was at the spot in the RA before the shooter left the ground, and the shooter still ends up where he did in this play because of the contact with the vertical defender. What would your call be then?
|
1. I thought the play was legal. The offensive player jumps into a defender who alights vertically to block the shot. The block was clean the rest of the contact, IMO, is incidental.
2. That would be a play I would have to see. I'm imagine it being a block since I'm not imagining the player in your scenario attempting to defend the shot.
Again, I thought NCAA's interpretation with regard to the RA was similar to the NBA's in that it didn't apply to a player making a legitimate attempt to block a shot. Apparently I might be incorrect on my interpretation there.