Syracuse v Virginia RA play - Higgins

[bballref3966]

Player control.

Yes, even John Higgins misses some calls. Doesn't mean we are any better than him by sitting here talking about how "badly" he missed it.

[Ktr]

There are many things to discuss on this play.

(1) at the point of contact Higgins is behind #51 unable to get a proper view. Based on his point to the RA -had to be a guess based on where the defender ended up.
(2) the c has a whistle and foul while starting to walk the other way before we lose him in camera view. Did he ever signal? Very close to a blarge.
(3) this should not be discussed as an ra play as there is only the primary defender involved.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Ktr

There are many things to discuss on this play.

(1) at the point of contact Higgins is behind #51 unable to get a proper view. Based on his point to the RA -had to be a guess based on where the defender ended up.
(2) the c has a whistle and foul while starting to walk the other way before we lose him in camera view. Did he ever signal? Very close to a blarge.
(3) this should not be discussed as an ra play as there is only the primary defender involved.

2 since C had a whistle, he had an opportunity to pick up location of the defender and can provide that information to Higgins. The call can easily be changed, because by pointing to the RA, Higgins is indicating he would have had a pc foul, but he thought the defender was in the RA.

3 this is an RA play because it is an outnumbered, 2 on 1 break. Under those conditions, all defenders are considered secondary defenders.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Ktr

(3) this should not be discussed as an ra play as there is only the primary defender involved.

Not correct. This is a 3-on-2 fastbreak situation which means all defenders are secondary.

[Ktr]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Not correct. This is a 3-on-2 fastbreak situation which means all defenders are secondary.

Yes agreed fast break- however I believe they are all "initially" secondary defenders. Once he established outside the ra he became legal. So in my view no longer an ra play. So on video I believe it no longer becomes ra----but obviously Higgins pointed down so he felt it must have been established inside thus making it an ra play.

Too bad the c didn't offer additional info.

[Referee24.7]

To me, what makes the call wrong is that he used the RA when it clearly wasn't in play, at least by the clip. . .

If the player was airborne and then Higgins used the RA because he came from the RA and invaded the offensive player's airspace, still a tough sell, but in that case, he could've just called a common blocking foul. . .

To another poster's point here, it just seemed that Higgins position-adjusted late and didn't see the entirety of the play -- which is something we've all done and will do. . .

[thedewed]

I think that the biggest lesson here is, since there was a C and he also had a whistle, and Higgins couldn't have been sure of what he thought he saw, since he was so wrong, is when you are not sure and there is a partner with a whistle, let him take it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I think that the biggest lesson here is, since there was a C and he also had a whistle, and Higgins couldn't have been sure of what he thought he saw, since he was so wrong, is when you are not sure and there is a partner with a whistle, let him take it.

You've never been sure of something that ended up being wrong? I have.

[CallMeMrRef]

I do not believe the secondary defender rule relies upon the point of contact, rather it begins with initial legal guarding position.

The rule states:
Art. 7. A secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position
in the restricted area for the purposes of drawing a player control foul/charge
on a player who is in control of the ball (i.e., dribbling or shooting) or who
has released the ball for a pass or try for goal.

It does not state that a secondary defender cannot be in the arc at time of contact. We know that after establishing legal guarding position, defenders are allowed to move backwards, even on an airborne player.
Rule 4-17.6e. Exception: A secondary defender who has established initial legal guarding position on an airborne shooter/passer may not move laterally or obliquely to maintain legal guarding position. The secondary defender in this position may remain stationary or may move backwards.

As to the C making a charge call, IF the play is called an RA play, the RA play trumps the charge call.

A.R. 235. As A2 makes a drive to the basket, B1, a secondary defender,
establishes his initial guarding position within the restricted area. Contact
occurs. One official calls a charge while another official calls a block.
RULING: B1 was a secondary defender who illegally established
initial guarding position within the restricted area. Consequently, the
blocking call against B1 is the correct call.
(Rule 10-1.14 and 4-35)

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

I do not believe the secondary defender rule relies upon the point of contact, rather it begins with initial legal guarding position.

The rule states:
Art. 7. A secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position
in the restricted area for the purposes of drawing a player control foul/charge
on a player who is in control of the ball (i.e., dribbling or shooting) or who
has released the ball for a pass or try for goal.

It does not state that a secondary defender cannot be in the arc at time of contact. We know that after establishing legal guarding position, defenders are allowed to move backwards, even on an airborne player.
Rule 4-17.6e. Exception: A secondary defender who has established initial legal guarding position on an airborne shooter/passer may not move laterally or obliquely to maintain legal guarding position. The secondary defender in this position may remain stationary or may move backwards.

As to the C making a charge call, IF the play is called an RA play, the RA play trumps the charge call.

A.R. 235. As A2 makes a drive to the basket, B1, a secondary defender,
establishes his initial guarding position within the restricted area. Contact
occurs. One official calls a charge while another official calls a block.
RULING: B1 was a secondary defender who illegally established
initial guarding position within the restricted area. Consequently, the
blocking call against B1 is the correct call.
(Rule 10-1.14 and 4-35)

The AR you cite is not what happened in the play we are discussing. In the play we are discussing, the C could have gone to the L and told him the player did not establish position in the RA. By pointing to the RA, the L was stating the contact would of been a PC if not for the defense being in the RA. Since this was wrong, the player was not in the RA, and the C presented definite knowledge, they would have correctly changed the call to a PC. The RA only "trumps" the call, when the defender established in the RA, not when he hasn't.

[CallMeMrRef]

Some agreement some disagreement with your points:
1) Yes the C could have gone to the L with RA information - but do we know he had that information or was just calling the play which initiated on his side...
2) Just because the L points to the RA doesn't necessarily mean the contact would have been PC without the RA in his mind; it may mean that since it was RA contact, it is a block regardless - he doesn't even have to decide...
3) So, RA play trumps reality absent evidence that it was not an RA play - evidence we do not have on the floor.