Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

Welpe

It would have been mildly entertaining to watch the C come out with a late PC to force a double foul. Wrong on many accounts but at least amusing.

Jay R

Rich wrote
Anyone tempted to call this a travel? 😉

Back in the old days before video, it always seemed to be the cop out. Unfortunately, there are still 2 or 3 guys in my area who would not hesitate to call the travel here.

Rich

Jay R wrote
Back in the old days before video, it always seemed to be the cop out. Unfortunately, there are still 2 or 3 guys in my area who would not hesitate to call the travel here.

I was just kidding, actually.

There are situations like this where there is a legitimate travel as the player recognizes the imminent contact, but this isn't one of them.

Jay R

Rich wrote
I was just kidding, actually.

There are situations like this where there is a legitimate travel as the player recognizes the imminent contact, but this isn't one of them.

I knew YOU were kidding.

Camron Rust

Welpe wrote
It would have been mildly entertaining to watch the C come out with a late PC to force a double foul. Wrong on many accounts but at least amusing.

Perhaps it would be better than sticking the wrong player with the foul. 😮

HokiePaul

BryanV21 wrote
Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact. That is, unless you say he shouldn't be allowed to catch that ball in the first place.

We should enforce the rules, not twist them to what we see as fair. That said, if you are looking for fair, I don't understand how punishing the defense for anticipating the play and getting to a spot legally is fair either. Think about this ... If a teamate throws the ball out of bounds, then he would not be allowed to legally catch it. You don't ignore the out of bounds rule because it seems fair to let the player have a chance to catch the ball. Likewise, if a teamate throws him the ball in a way that leads him into a collision with a defender, that doesn't mean you ignore the rule on charging because it seems fair to let the player catch the ball.

JetMetFan

By the way, here's the case play from the NCAA (it's AR 85 in both rule books):

B1 takes a spot on the playing court before A1 jumps to catch a pass.
1. A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1; or
2. B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 comes to the floor on one foot and then charges into B1.
RULING: In both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1. In (1), B1 is entitled to that spot on the floor provided (s)he gets there legally before the offensive player becomes airborne. However, in (2), when A1 possesses the ball then lands on the floor, no time and distance is required.
(Rule 4-17.4.c and .d, 4-17.3 and Exception 4-17.7)

dahoopref

John Adams has ruled this play a "block" on today's Arbiter video bulletin #14; correct call.

[deleted]

dahoopref wrote
John Adams has ruled this play a "block" on today's Arbiter video bulletin #14; correct call.

Did he explain his reasoning?

dahoopref

AremRed wrote
Did he explain his reasoning?

Rule 4 Sec 17 Art 5 a thru d

Welpe

dahoopref wrote
John Adams has ruled this play a "block" on today's Arbiter video bulletin #14; correct call.

Wow. Well wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with an officiating coordinator on a play.

Per the rulebook there's no way I can see that this is anything but a PC.

[deleted]

dahoopref wrote
Rule 4 Sec 17 Art 5 a thru d

So basically John ruled that the Texas player did not have the ball. Thus, time/distance is a factor.

Welpe

AremRed wrote
So basically John ruled that the Texas player did not have the ball. Thus, time/distance is a factor.

If that's the case, I'd like to know what it means to take a step and a half while firmly holding the ball?

JetMetFan

Welpe wrote
If that's the case, I'd like to know what it means to take a step and a half while firmly holding the ball?

So...should NCAAM expect a new interpretation as to what constitutes possession? 😕

If I was Bill Self I'd send Adams a screen shot of the Texas player holding the ball with both hands while he was still at least one giant step away from my defender.

Welpe

JetMetFan wrote
So...should NCAAM expect a new interpretation as to what constitutes possession? :confused:

Maybe it'll look like the catch rule for NCAA football. 😕

I know one thing, with what's been going on with the rules lately, I'd be smiling if I were an NCAA-W official.

JetMetFan

Welpe wrote
I know one thing, with what's been going on with the rules lately, I'd be smiling if I were an NCAA-W official.

You mean like me? 😀

And here I was thinking the LDB and the RA would be a headache. Those are a piece of cake compared to this.

Welpe

JetMetFan wrote
You mean like me? 😃

Eggsactly! 😉

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BryanV21 wrote
Rule 4-23
ART. 5... Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.

I wouldn't treat the player receiving the ball as "an opponent with the ball", as in Article 4... where time and distance are not factors. By the time he caught and gathered the ball he had no chance to do anything with it (dribble, shoot, pass, or just stop with it), as the defender was less than two steps away.

Perhaps if the defender was within the offensive player's line of sight, then you can say the offensive player had enough of a chance to avoid contact. But since the offensive player was looking back and up at the pass, I would say without reservation that the defender was at fault for the contact.

Bryan:

First full disclosure: My mother graduated from Kansas and I am a Kansas fan, but people in the Forum will tell you I am always unbiased when it comes to officiaing.

Once the Texas player had control of the ball, the Kansas defender had established a LGP. Time and distance does not matter in this play nor does it matter whether the Texas player did or not see the Kansas player. This is a classic Casebook Play for a charge.

MTD, Sr.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

HokiePaul wrote
We should enforce the rules, not twist them to what we see as fair. That said, if you are looking for fair, I don't understand how punishing the defense for anticipating the play and getting to a spot legally is fair either. Think about this ... If a teamate throws the ball out of bounds, then he would not be allowed to legally catch it. You don't ignore the out of bounds rule because it seems fair to let the player have a chance to catch the ball. Likewise, if a teamate throws him the ball in a way that leads him into a collision with a defender, that doesn't mean you ignore the rule on charging because it seems fair to let the player catch the ball.

MTD, Sr.

MD Longhorn

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
Bryan:

First full disclosure: My mother graduated from Kansas and I am a Kansas fan, but people in the Forum will tell you I am always unbiased when it comes to officiaing.

Once the Texas player had control of the ball, the Kansas defender had established a LGP. Time and distance does not matter in this play nor does it matter whether the Texas player did or not see the Kansas player. This is a classic Casebook Play for a charge.

MTD, Sr.

I graduated from the University of Texas and fully admit I am likely biased in their favor... and this was a charge.

« Previous Page Next Page »