NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Saturday March 18

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Agreed. FF1 was a real possibility, otherwise, team control foul was 100% correct.

This crew didn't have a great game overall. They got their share of calls correct, but had other strange moments. For example, there was a play in the 2nd half in which the Lead called a held ball while both the C and T were whistling a foul against Wisconsin.

I think there are two possible reasons that they didn't consider (or at least go with) and FF1....

1. The player reached out with his arm as he ran by, not a grab from behind.
2. The other player really didn't have an obvious advantage...he was chasing a ball that was going quite likely going OOB.

Of course, my point #2 is in contradiction with the fact that they deemed the Villanova player to have obtained control.

And I agree this crew have a rough game. I think there were several misses. However, the biggest ones I can think of favored Villanova. So, that certainly didn't cost them the game.

[Rich]

One and only one warning -- and the person receiving it knows who he is.

Next time, you can sit out the rest of the tourney again. Let it go.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by bucky

Well, about 4:50 to go in the NW/Gonzaga game and there is a Zag player that blocks a shot by going through the hoop. Collins becomes unglued and runs on the court to receive immediate T. Officials totally missed the BI but Collins had no right to act that way, especially after his behavior earlier. Got too much of his dad in him, lol.

Coverage on the missed BI play....Is the The Trail's call who was table side or the Center who was opposite table? Would this miss likely end this crew's run?

[ODog]

JRut, didn't want to start a new thread without your blessing, so here's a video request from March 19:
Michigan-Louisville, second half, 5:30 left. Louisville player blows a dunk but remains hanging on the rim in order to help corral the rebound.

Officials ruled BI, but nothing more. In HS, you could argue this was 10-4-4a (placing a hand on the ring to gain an advantage). Is the rule different in NCAAM, or were the officials likely going with the least disruptive call in a tight game?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Wisconsin-Villanova

15:33 second half. Block/Charge on a fast break

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

CBS
Wisconsin v Villanova
2nd half 36.4 seconds left
This is a team control foul!!!
Hope the crew gets this right.
Nope, they blew it and awarded FTs. A critical mistake.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Peace

They pointed at the floor as if it was an RA block but he obtained LGP outside of the circle then stepped back into it. If it is a block, it can't be due to the RA. I have charge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They pointed at the floor as if it was an RA block but he obtained LGP outside of the circle then stepped back into it. If it is a block, it can't be due to the RA. I have charge.

I know we had this conversation before but this would be a secondary defender as this is an outnumbered break. Some might disagree, but this is why it was called a block IMO.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know we had this conversation before but this would be a secondary defender as this is an outnumbered break. Some might disagree, but this is why it was called a block IMO.

Peace

Isn't that irrelevant when a defender gains LGP outside of the RA since the RA is about obtaining LGP?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't that irrelevant when a defender gains LGP outside of the RA since the RA is about obtaining LGP?

You cannot be there at the time of contact. So even if you back up into the RA, you are a secondary defender, you have committed a blocking foul.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot be there at the time of contact. So even if you back up into the RA, you are a secondary defender, you have committed a blocking foul.

Peace

That is not what the rule says.....it only says that all defenders are a secondary defender on and outnumbering fast-break. It doesn't say they lose previously gained LGP by backing into the arc.

Then the RA rule says:

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.

NCAA Case Book:

A.R. 101. Team A is on a 3 on 2 or a 2 on 3 fast break, and any player on Team B takes an initial guarding position .... (2) outside the restricted area with two feet on the floor and facing the opponent, in an attempt to draw a player control/charging foul. A2, after receiving a pass, crashes into the torso of the Team B player, and the official calls a player control/ charging foul.
34 Rule 4 / Definitions
RULING
2: The official is correct. Even though the Team B player is initially a secondary defender, he did not establish initial guarding position inside the restricted area. When illegal contact occurs, it shall be a player control/charging foul.
(Rule 4-35.4, 4-30 and 10-1.14)

This case says that if the defender gets initial LGP outside the area, it can still be a charge. It doesn't restrict the defender's movement after gaining LGP.

[johnny d]

Agree with Rust on the rule. Disagree about where he established LGP. I think his right foot is on the line when he established.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Agree with Rust on the rule. Disagree about where he established LGP. I think his right foot is on the line when he established.

Not saying you are wrong however....

When the ball handler crosses the 3-pt line (pause vid at :08), do you feel that the defender is in LGP? At the same time, do you feel that the defender is still a secondary defender?

IMO, the defender established LGP well before the contact and at contact was considered to be a primary defender. (for outnumbering fast-breaks, defensive players are secondary defenders initially). I know why they called this a block however I feel it should have been PC.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is not what the rule says.....it only says that all defenders are a secondary defender on and outnumbering fast-break. It doesn't say they lose previously gained LGP by backing into the arc.

Then the RA rule says:



NCAA Case Book:



This case says that if the defender gets initial LGP outside the area, it can still be a charge. It doesn't restrict the defender's movement after gaining LGP.

I do not disagree that the language is fuzzy, but that is not how the rule is applied. When the player is in the RA during contact, that is what they seem to want to be called a block. Many examples have been shown on video to support that position. Because I have seen secondary defenders back up into the RA and get called and have seen video that supports this.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is not what the rule says.....it only says that all defenders are a secondary defender on and outnumbering fast-break. It doesn't say they lose previously gained LGP by backing into the arc.

Then the RA rule says:



NCAA Case Book:



This case says that if the defender gets initial LGP outside the area, it can still be a charge. It doesn't restrict the defender's movement after gaining LGP.

I actually include this in my college pre-games. Once establishing LGP, the secondary defender can retreat into the RA and absorb contact.