NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Saturday March 18

[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.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

I can see your point. I would not go so far as when the dribbler is at the 3 point line. Perhaps when he is at the free throw line. I can see why some people would go that route and I don't have a problem with it, its just not what I would do in this type of situation.

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Fuzzy? This isn't one of those fuzzy things. It may be how you and other are applying it but that doesn't make it right. Perhaps in those videos, they didn't deem the defender to have gained LGP before backing into the circle.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Fuzzy? This isn't one of those fuzzy things. It may be how you and other are applying it but that doesn't make it right. Perhaps in those videos, they didn't deem the defender to have gained LGP before backing into the circle.

Unless you see the videos on a regular basis where they give examples of these plays, then those plays are often shown as a RA block. And it is really the case when there is a outnumbered break where the defender moves and is in the RA during contact. So I get what you are saying, but you clearly are trying to "gotcha" with the rule, while not realizing that they put out almost weekly videos of plays which have caused some confusion at times. So I am not convinced they got this wrong in practice. And even this Hyland example caused some confusion and was talked about in pre-games.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless you see the videos on a regular basis where they give examples of these plays, then those plays are often shown as a RA block. And it is really the case when there is a outnumbered break where the defender moves and is in the RA during contact. So I get what you are saying, but you clearly are trying to "gotcha" with the rule, while not realizing that they put out almost weekly videos of plays which have caused some confusion at times. So I am not convinced they got this wrong in practice. And even this Hyland example caused some confusion and was talked about in pre-games.

Peace

LOL...see the Art Hyland play quoted above. Apparently, you're misunderstanding the rulings or the reason for the rulings.

And you have it backwards....the "gotcha" is calling such a player with a block when they deserved a charge just because he ended up with a heel on the line.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

LOL...see the Art Hyland play quoted above. Apparently, you're misunderstanding the rulings or the reason for the rulings.

And you have it backwards....the "gotcha" is calling such a player with a block when they deserved a charge just because he ended up with a heel on the line.

I did not misunderstand his ruling, I think they have been contradictory. Again, there is video that has muddied this water. I actually worked a game where this was unclear based on a video the NCAA put out about a similar play. But then again, do you work college? You have access to the videos? This was discussed this year about what is the proper thing. That was put out this year and then there was a video that looked like the player backed into the RA and a block was encouraged to be called. Also, they appeared to call a block because of the RA in this play. So if I am misunderstanding the information put out, I guess I am not alone. You can play the "This what Art Hyland said..." but you do not appear to be aware of the videos that are put out based on this conversation and other conversations that are discussed on staffs or with fellow college officials. And I am sure if this is wrong, the NCAA will either clear up their wording from Art Hyland or make it clear when J.D. Collins comments for the coming year if they do not change the rule or the interpretation.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not misunderstand his ruling, I think they have been contradictory. Again, there is video that has muddied this water. I actually worked a game where this was unclear based on a video the NCAA put out about a similar play. But then again, do you work college? You have access to the videos? This was discussed this year about what is the proper thing. That was put out this year and then there was a video that looked like the player backed into the RA and a block was encouraged to be called. Also, they appeared to call a block because of the RA in this play. So if I am misunderstanding the information put out, I guess I am not alone. You can play the "This what Art Hyland said..." but you do not appear to be aware of the videos that are put out based on this conversation and other conversations that are discussed on staffs or with fellow college officials. And I am sure if this is wrong, the NCAA will either clear up their wording from Art Hyland or make it clear when J.D. Collins comments for the coming year if they do not change the rule or the interpretation.

Peace

Whatever you've seen, the statement above is 100% clear. Continue to rationalize your error all you want. That doesn't change the facts.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Fuzzy? This isn't one of those fuzzy things. It may be how you and other are applying it but that doesn't make it right. Perhaps in those videos, they didn't deem the defender to have gained LGP before backing into the circle.

Per the NCAA Men's Basketball Central Hub via Art Hyland - Rules: Rules Clarifications and Play Situations (November 17, 2016):

Play 3. B1 and B2 are defending against a 3 on 2 fast break by Team A. Around the top of the key, A1 passes to A2 who is on the wing and B2 then commits to defending A2 by establishing a legal guarding position outside the RA on A2 (2 feet on the floor and facing his opponent). B2 defends A2 all the way to the basket and takes a charge in the RA.

RULING – B2 is initially a secondary defender because of the outnumbering fast break situation. However, B2 established legal guarding position on A2 outside the RA. Therefore, he is no longer a secondary defender and may defend A2 all the way to the basket including in the RA. In this situation, the RA rule is not in effect and block/charge plays should be adjudicated accordingly (Rule 4-35.4, 4-17.4, 4-17.7, and 10-1.14).

[bucky]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Per the NCAA Men's Basketball Central Hub via Art Hyland - Rules: Rules Clarifications and Play Situations (November 17, 2016):

Yes! Yes! Yes!

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Excellent rules point stated by Camron and backed by BNR.