Syracuse v Virginia RA play - Higgins

[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...

[rockyroad]

Question...did they shoot free throws on this play? I don't remember if they did, but am wondering if the point was not at the RA but was maybe signifying the shooter was "on the floor"??? If they shot free throws, then my wondering is moot...anyone remember if they shot?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Question...did they shoot free throws on this play? I don't remember if they did, but am wondering if the point was not at the RA but was maybe signifying the shooter was "on the floor"??? If they shot free throws, then my wondering is moot...anyone remember if they shot?

Play-by-play indicates a shooting foul and two free throws.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Question...did they shoot free throws on this play? I don't remember if they did, but am wondering if the point was not at the RA but was maybe signifying the shooter was "on the floor"??? If they shot free throws, then my wondering is moot...anyone remember if they shot?

Yes they did. I cut this out of the video for the effort of time.

Peace

[CallMeMrRef]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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

I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, but nowhere in the manual does it indicate that if I point to the RA that I would otherwise have called a PC. It just doesn't stand up to logic. Here is why there is a difference:

If the play is a block, and I don't point that indicates that the block is being called on illegal movement. No one can bring me information on the RA that would change that call.

But if I called a block, because I thought it was an RA play and pointed (which is how the Signaling Sequence is worded "occurs because the secondary defender was located in the restricted area"), if someone brought me information that the defender wasn't inside the RA, the play could then be changed. There may be times when the only thing I am calling (which could be wrong...) is that the defender was secondary and in the RA when contact occurred - I don't have to decide if B/C - I just point to the RA and indicate block. And we know that there are some 50/50 plays that could go either way. By your assertion I could not do this as you assume I would have had a PC.

Now you or your conference may have adopted the position that pointing = PC, but don't argue that that is what the mechanics manual states.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, but nowhere in the manual does it indicate that if I point to the RA that I would otherwise have called a PC. It just doesn't stand up to logic. Here is why there is a difference:

If the play is a block, and I don't point that indicates that the block is being called on illegal movement. No one can bring me information on the RA that would change that call.

But if I called a block, because I thought it was an RA play and pointed (which is how the Signaling Sequence is worded "occurs because the secondary defender was located in the restricted area"), if someone brought me information that the defender wasn't inside the RA, the play could then be changed. There may be times when the only thing I am calling (which could be wrong...) is that the defender was secondary and in the RA when contact occurred - I don't have to decide if B/C - I just point to the RA and indicate block. And we know that there are some 50/50 plays that could go either way. By your assertion I could not do this as you assume I would have had a PC.

Now you or your conference may have adopted the position that pointing = PC, but don't argue that that is what the mechanics manual states.

Again, my comment was in jest but I agree with the others. Adam highlighted the bottom part of the manual which said if it's a block with or without the RA don't point to the RA.
Now, If I'm certain he's in the arc I might report it that way at table. Not pointing to arc when I call it is important for communication to partners. The arc can be a pain and the mechanic lets us all know what's going on.

If I know that when u signal block, it's a block no matter what...forget the arc...im not coming in to tell you anything. It was a block no matter what. If I know that you will only point to RA if call would have been charge but for RA I know whether to change or not.

[pizanno]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, but nowhere in the manual does it indicate that if I point to the RA that I would otherwise have called a PC. It just doesn't stand up to logic. Here is why there is a difference:

If the play is a block, and I don't point that indicates that the block is being called on illegal movement. No one can bring me information on the RA that would change that call.

Correct. LGP not established. Straight block.

But if I called a block, because I thought it was an RA play and pointed (which is how the Signaling Sequence is worded "occurs because the secondary defender was located in the restricted area"), if someone brought me information that the defender wasn't inside the RA, the play could then be changed. There may be times when the only thing I am calling (which could be wrong...) is that the defender was secondary and in the RA when contact occurred - I don't have to decide if B/C - I just point to the RA and indicate block. And we know that there are some 50/50 plays that could go either way. By your assertion I could not do this as you assume I would have had a PC.

A point to RA indicates you are calling block ONLY because defender located in RA as LGP was established.

Why this is important (and logical):
There will be plays where calling official mis-applies RA rule (play develops in LDB, one-on-one, etc.) and pointing to RA invites partners to come with additional info to change to PC call. No point, no discussion.

In your scenario above, if you point to RA regardless of block/charge decision, then your partner comes and says "Partner, RA doesn't apply in this play because...". What will your reply be?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, but nowhere in the manual does it indicate that if I point to the RA that I would otherwise have called a PC. It just doesn't stand up to logic. Here is why there is a difference:

In Adam's post #28 -- the orange highlight indicates point if it would otherwise be a charge. That's the meaning of "..because the defender was in the RA". I think you might be confusing this with "IF the defender is in the RA").

The red part in that post says that if it's a block either way, do not point. I have a hard time seeing how that sentence could be any more clear.

[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

[johnny d]

Amazing, absolutely amazing! I have never been closer to actually having my head explode than when I read some of the posts in this thread.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

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

As Bob said, how could they make it any clearer. And I'm the lurker here who usually says that what they say is a clear rule is not really clear.
Here's how you resolve your problem. When there is contact decide what it would have been absent the RA. Just like you would have on any other play. If it would have been a block, signal block. If it would have been a charge, signal a restricted area block. Then if you're wrong about the RA, your partner can come in and help you. If you're wrong about the block charge part of it nobody can help you. Put another way, you don't get to defer deciding this part of the play because there's an easy way out, because you might be wrong about the easy way out.