Syracuse v Virginia RA play - Higgins
 

Does any one have a clip of this play. Higgins is one of the best, but it looked like the defender in the play I am referring to was at least a foot in front of the ARC. Believe 1st half. He pointed to the arc and I believe the commentators mentioned it as well.
Question - if defender establishes initial legal guarding position in front of the arc and steps back with one or both feet to brace for the contact (legal movement) does it matter where his feet end up? Not saying that is what happened on this play, but thinking that situation might be confusing.

I did not see your play and Jeff or others will need more specific info of when it occurred to pull it up. A secondary defender cannot attempt to take a charge with a foot in or over the arc. That is viewed as when initial contact occurs. If he is hit and knocked into the arc that's different.

he missed that bad. both feet were at least a foot in front of the RA upon contact. I don't know what he thought he saw, but it didn't happen. The trail had a charge, so I don't know how they dealt with that either. And the defender was there and planted for several steps.

We're going to need video to speculate any further, but in order to get video, the Video Department is going to need more to work with.

Higgins missed that one badly. He would have been better not pointing to the RA because the defender was probably two feet outside. I replayed it to confirm.

How about posting...can u do that? Or at least give the time of play...thx

I cannot guess out of thin air which you are discussing. Need at least the minute in which the play happened to see the play. I can get this rather easily, but I did not see the entire game all the way through.

Peace

I can't. All is I remember is 1st half. Probably half way through. Sorry.

Block ra point
 

Occurs at approximately the 10:46 mark.

I will just leave that here. (Video)
 

Gotcha, thanks.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F60hjaw2yDE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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.

Primary defender
 

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.

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.

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. . .

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.

Establish Initial legal guarding position
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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

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.

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

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

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

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

Peace

Beg to disagree - for a third time
 

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.:rolleyes:

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.

[QUOTE]Correct. LGP not established. Straight block.

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?

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.

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

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.:confused:

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.

1) This is in the mechanics manual as others have pointed out. The mechanics manual tells us exactly what to do. If it is a block because the player is in the restricted area, point. This means you only point if it is a block because of the RA. The second point in the mechanics manual says, if it is judged a block solely due to the contact (regardless of location on the floor), you do not point.

2) The quote above explains why this is the mechanic. First of all, you have to referee the play every time. You can't simply chose to take the easy way out and say "Thank God he was in the RA, I can now call a block on a play I have no clue how to actually rule." You have to referee the play. This is important for the play I bolded above. If you are simply saying "I've got a block only because of the RA, and if he's actually not in the RA, I don't have a clue" you are screwed when your partner comes with additional information. What are you going to do? Make it up?

You must be a camp favorite. [emoji79]

What's really amazing is that you brought the CCA manual into this conversation and now you're ignoring the words you actually quoted.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yes it is because that's what's written in the CCA manual. If you as the calling official don't point at the RA on the initial call your partners can also come in with information if necessary ("#xx on Team B established his/her guarding position in the RA" if your call was a PC or TC foul). If you call a block on your own without pointing, that call is all yours.

To borrow from a fellow official not in this Forum, you seem to be taking simple math - i.e., the line from the CCA manual - and turning it into calculus.

No, it couldn't. It MUST be a charge. If you point you are saying "this is a CHARGE if it's not an RA, and a BLOCK if it is an RA." So, once your partner tells you it's not an RA -- you're left with no choice.

CallMeMrRef - you are wrong. The clue would be that you are the only salmon swimming downstream while the rest are going the other way.

Your quotes even prove you wrong. It's ok to be wrong.

My last attempt - thankfully you will say
 

Exactly what I am saying. I am going to put this in simple terms. Let's just take the bang bang play in the RA. I know it is in the RA and the tape will show it is in the RA - no question it is in the RA. - no partners will have to come in - they may actually reinforce that the play was in the RA. When I make the block call, due to it being in the RA, and point to the RA, I am saying, this play is a block because of where it happened. It does not indicate whether I thought it would have been a block or charge without the RA. There is no judgment to be questioned on the B/C, just on the location of the play. The coach then knows why this call is a block when the last call down the court was a charge on similar contact. It all gets back to communication - everybody knows what was called and why.

You all are saying that I can only point to the RA if I had made the decision it was a PC. I don't read it that way and will point to the RA in this situation unless my supervisors tell me otherwise.

If that is calculus, so be it.

You totally don't understand the purpose of the RA.

You yourself posted the CCA manual verbiage that told you that if you point to the RA the play would have been an offensive foul minus the restricted area Arc. How come you aren't responding to that? I can only suppose that you are either a troll, coach, or fan who is nowhere near close to officiating in college basketball.

You would be the kind of official who ruins camp for everybody else. There is no way in hell any college supervisor would hire somebody with this type of mentality so quit pretending you're a college official.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Well, that day has finally arrived....:D ;)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h1...psjrjlfs2a.jpg

Ok, we're shutting this down now.

They're all saying it because that's what a plain reading of the rule you quoted says.

This thread is closed.