Maui Invitational Video Plays (Marq vs Wichita St)

[JRutledge]

Play #1:



Play #2:


A few more to come.

Peace

[ballgame99]

And play 1 would still be a violation under NFHS rules. (And I will still get yelled at and a bad rating from the coach when I call it)

Play 2 I look forward to what you guys say, I don't think that should be a foul, but I'm not sure why.

[Zoochy]

1) BC violation (in High School)
2) What did the defender do wrong?
-Jumped sideways.
-Landed on ground w/o contact
-Did Not move towards shooter

Call an Offensive call on the shooter for jumping into defender. Shooter initiated contact. Or call nothing

[JRutledge]

Play #3:



Peace

[#olderthanilook]

The announcers really annoyed me during a sequence when the springy haired WSU player was called for a block along the sideline between center court and the 28 ft line, then was called for a charge a few minutes later.

I know I strongly disagreed with their analysis of the sideline block - they couldn't be more sure that it should have been ruled a charge and were upset about it. However, the defender's right foot was OOB. Therefore, no LGP in NFHS rules. Not sure about Collegiate rules.

Would like to see the video and hear from college level officials about that specific play.

[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.

[AremRed]

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

[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, ....

[AremRed]

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.

[AremRed]

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.

[crosscountry55]

I’m with AremRed. Looked at the video several times and while it was close, the defender had not returned to the ground at the point of contact. Even if he had, he might still have been moving toward his opponent which is not maintenance of LGP.

You can say that if the ball handler hadn’t stepped into the defender when shooting, contact may not have occurred. Ok, sure. But what’s to say the ball handler is required to honor an illegal defender and pull up? The answer is....nothing. Good heads up play by the shooter to draw the foul because he sensed the defender committed to the block too soon. Even better correct call by the crew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk