Maui Invitational Video Plays (Marq vs Wichita St)

[Camron Rust]

Play 3 should have been a block. The L had a poor angle to see the continued movement that brought the defender barely into the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne. If not for the continued movement, there would have been no contact.

Play 1: Correct no call

Play 2: Defender not legal, CC

Play 3: Blocking foul, very tough to detect

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Play 3 should have been a block. The L had a poor angle to see the continued movement that brought the defender barely into the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne. If not for the continued movement, there would have been no contact.

+1. There was a LGP established, but instead of moving laterally to maintain (which he would not have had time to do), he leaned out of his vertical plane. The lean was directly toward the L, and thus virtually imperceptible. I can understand the CI. I’m not really sure how L could have improved his look in the time given. About the only thing he might have done better would be to recognize the bad angle, post, and then hope C had a fist up with a better opinion. Unlikely, however. Really tough play for L on a single whistle.

I disagree that no continued movement would have resulted in no contact. There would have been some. But it would have been small enough that everyone would have been satisfied with a no call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I disagree that no continued movement would have resulted in no contact. There would have been some. But it would have been small enough that everyone would have been satisfied with a no call.

You're probably right....it would have been marginal at most.

[deecee]

1. no BC
2. no call - the defender has every right to that space and all the contact was initiated by the offense. I wish they would rule on these as offensive fouls
3. block

Originally Posted by deecee

2. no call - the defender has every right to that space and all the contact was initiated by the offense.

Offense initiating the contact only matters if it is into a legal defender. The defender is this play is not legal.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Offense initiating the contact only matters if it is into a legal defender. The defender is this play is not legal.

It looks like the defender just lands when the offensive player takes off. He's entitled to his spot. If the shooter jumped earlier I would definitely agree with you, this just looks a no-call.

Originally Posted by deecee

It looks like the defender just lands when the offensive player takes off. He's entitled to his spot. If the shooter jumped earlier I would definitely agree with you, this just looks a no-call.

We are there to call obvious fouls. I don't think the defender is obviously on the ground when contact occurs, thus I think we should lean towards a foul here. I think it's telling that both guys had it -- that's the expectation at this level.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're probably right....it would have been marginal at most.

but, since it wouldn't have been the fifth foul, ....

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

but, since it wouldn't have been the fifth foul, ....

Hahahaha. This made me laugh aloud.