Syracuse v Virginia RA play - Higgins

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

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...

Not true, at least in NCAAW. If it's a block either way, then signal the block and DO NOT point to the RA. If you point to the RA, you are saying that it would have been PC, except for the RA. That way, if someone comes to you with information, the call WILL bee changed.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not true, at least in NCAAW. If it's a block either way, then signal the block and DO NOT point to the RA. If you point to the RA, you are saying that it would have been PC, except for the RA. That way, if someone comes to you with information, the call WILL bee changed.

This is the expectation in NCAA-M as well. If the play is a block, regardless of where defender established position, the official is supposed to use the block signal without pointing to the RA.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are correct, we do not know if the C had knowledge or not. We can only assume not, because he did not offer said knowledge to the L. Just like we can only assume the C was going to call a PC, but we don't know for sure since he did not give a preliminary signal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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.

#2 is completely wrong. You point to the RA only if it would have been an offensive foul otherwise.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[APG]

Originally Posted by 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.

Like others have said, pointing to the RA tells everyone and your partners that you have a blocking foul due to the RA...meaning absent the RA, the defender would have been legal. This also allows partners to give information in the case that a defender was outside the RA.

This is the mechanic used for NCAA-W, NCAA-M and the NBA.

[CallMeMrRef]

Originally Posted by APG

Like others have said, pointing to the RA tells everyone and your partners that you have a blocking foul due to the RA...meaning absent the RA, the defender would have been legal. This also allows partners to give information in the case that a defender was outside the RA.

This is the mechanic used for NCAA-W, NCAA-M and the NBA.

I hear what you are saying, but the Men's mechanics manual actually indicates something different:

From the Manual: Signaling Sequence. When a blocking foul occurs because the secondary defender was located in the restricted area, the official has two signaling sequences that can be utilized.
Fist in the air, point to the restricted area, signal block (below PlayPics Option 1) OR Fist in the air, signal block, point to the restricted area (Option 2).

Both of these sequences include a point - due to location of defender, which is why the blocking foul is being called - and says nothing about actual result of the play - it could be either.

Also from the manual: Note: If the foul called on the court is a blocking foul regardless of where the player was positioned, the calling official should not point to the restricted area when signaling the foul. That will alert the partners that a blocking foul is being called without reference to the restricted area.

Lastly, the note shows NOT to point to the RA when calling official believes the play to be a block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

I hear what you are saying, but the Men's mechanics manual actually indicates something different:

From the Manual: Signaling Sequence. When a blocking foul occurs because the secondary defender was located in the restricted area, the official has two signaling sequences that can be utilized.
Fist in the air, point to the restricted area, signal block (below PlayPics Option 1) OR Fist in the air, signal block, point to the restricted area (Option 2).

Both of these sequences include a point - due to location of defender, which is why the blocking foul is being called - and says nothing about actual result of the play - it could be either.

Also from the manual: Note: If the foul called on the court is a blocking foul regardless of where the player was positioned, the calling official should not point to the restricted area when signaling the foul. That will alert the partners that a blocking foul is being called without reference to the restricted area.

Lastly, the note shows NOT to point to the RA when calling official believes the play to be a block.

Uhm, the rules you quote say exactly what the others have been saying.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

Uhm, the rules you quote say exactly what the other have been saying.

Agree. This made me chuckle again...twice in one day. I would have spelled it ummmmmmmmm...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

...
Also from the manual: Note: If the foul called on the court is a blocking foul regardless of where the player was positioned, the calling official should not point to the restricted area when signaling the foul. That will alert the partners that a blocking foul is being called without reference to the restricted area.

....

Are you even taking the time to read your own quotes from the manual?

It tells you right there not to point at the RA if the play would have been a block regardless of the RA. What more do you need? I'm confounded.

[CallMeMrRef]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are you even taking the time to read your own quotes from the manual?

It tells you right there not to point at the RA if the play would have been a block regardless of the RA. What more do you need? I'm confounded.

I guess you guys have never had a block/charge play that was bang bang on a fast break that needs 4 of your fellow officials to review the film 5 time in slow motion to decide whether the play was a block or a charge. Then have one of those plays happen where you adjudicate it as an RA play and in that split second call a block solely because the defender was in the RA. Seems to me in that situation you would follow the signaling sequence and include both a block signal and point to the RA.

Now, suppose your interpretation of the RA play is wrong - say it was on a fast break, but it was actually 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 and your partner brings you that information since you indicated it was an RA play. Now you would have to do what we do on any other 50/50 play and come up with a call. That could be a block or that could be a charge.

Hence it is not necessarily true that if you call an RA play and point to the RA that you would have had a PC.

Splitting hairs, but I don't think you leap to stating something as fact that is not actually written in the books. I understand that approach works and holds true 98% of the time, but if that were the rule, then it would have been easy enough to put it in writing just as the block in any circumstance is in writing.

QED