Michigan/Purdue...block/PC (video request)

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So is the 3pt line the line of demarcation or is there no distance defined by the NCAA? I ask because on this play the rebounder was outside the 3pt line. He also had a defender who ran past him in an attempt to reach the ball. Does he count as the primary defender? The NCAA AR states that there is no defender on the rebounder.

I would say there is no limit on the distance of the rebound, it can occur beyond the three point line as well.

I would not under any definition consider the defensive player that was trying to get the ball a primary defender. Before the white player possess the ball, neither team can be considered offense or defense. When the white player does gain possession and become and offensive player, the opponent is clearly behind him. It would be a stretch to consider him a primary defender.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I would say there is no limit on the distance of the rebound, it can occur beyond the three point line as well.

I would not under any definition consider the defensive player that was trying to get the ball a primary defender. Before the white player possess the ball, neither team can be considered offense or defense. When the white player does gain possession and become and offensive player, the opponent is clearly behind him. It would be a stretch to consider him a primary defender.

Thank you for your help with this ruling.
I've come to the conclusion that this rule needs better definition by the NCAA. The officials do not have clear enough parameters to use in such situations.
I would like to see the NCAA limit this to situations in which the offensive player does not dribble or the rebounder gains possession with at least one foot in the FT lane. Under those circumstances the NCAA could state that the RA does not apply.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thank you for your help with this ruling.
I've come to the conclusion that this rule needs better definition by the NCAA. The officials do not have clear enough parameters to use in such situations.
I would like to see the NCAA limit this to situations in which the offensive player does not dribble or the rebounder gains possession with at least one foot in the FT lane. Under those circumstances the NCAA could state that the RA does not apply.

You might be right, the rule as written leaves the potential for some pretty strange plays.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thank you for your help with this ruling.
I've come to the conclusion that this rule needs better definition by the NCAA. The officials do not have clear enough parameters to use in such situations.
I would like to see the NCAA limit this to situations in which the offensive player does not dribble or the rebounder gains possession with at least one foot in the FT lane. Under those circumstances the NCAA could state that the RA does not apply.

I think that's part of the reason NCAAW went to the LDB concept -- it helps set the "distance" for such a play -- and similar plays to this had some discussion in the year prior to the change.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

You might be right, the rule as written leaves the potential for some pretty strange plays.

Exactly, I wouldn't even think of this being an immediate drive.

He caught the ball going away from the basket, stopped briefly, then turned back the the basket for a drive.

#34 was defending white 44 and only shifted over as the shooter drove to the basket. That, to me, with the actions of this shooter, is a secondary defender, even with the AR you posted considered.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly, I wouldn't even think of this being an immediate drive.

He caught the ball going away from the basket, stopped briefly, then turned back the the basket for a drive.

#34 was defending white 44 and only shifted over as the shooter drove to the basket. That, to me, with the actions of this shooter, is a secondary defender, even with the AR you posted considered.

According to the exception to the RA rule, spelled out in the AR, this part is irrelevant. On most, if not all of the plays, especially ones like the AR, the defender involved in the contact will have been guarding another player while or before the move to the basket started.

If you want to argue the white player did not make an immediate move to the basket, so be it. I would disagree, but by rule, that is the only argument you can make. Once one has decided that the white player did indeed make an immediate move to the basket, then who the defensive player involved in the contact may or may not have been defending is not a factor in adjudicating this play correctly.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by johnny d

According to the exception to the RA rule, spelled out in the AR, this part is irrelevant.....

It's not addressed, so we do not know if it is relevant or not.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's not addressed, so we do not know if it is relevant or not.

It is addressed directly in the rule. "After an offensive rebound, there are no secondary defenders when the rebounder makes an immediate move to the basket."

None of the defenders, regardless of what they are doing at the time the rebounder makes his move to the basket, are to be considered secondary defenders. Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

It is addressed directly in the rule. "After an offensive rebound, there are no secondary defenders when the rebounder makes an immediate move to the basket."

None of the defenders, regardless of what they are doing at the time the rebounder makes his move to the basket, are to be considered secondary defenders. Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

But what is an immediate move. I picture it as catching the rebound and, in one motion, going to the basket. If there is a pause or reversal of direction, I wouldn't consider that immediate.

RA block.