Syracuse v Virginia RA play - Higgins

[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.