RA plays (Video)

[JRutledge]

Play 1:



Play 2:



Peace

[SC Official]

1: Extremely close and I honestly can’t tell. If he was out it’s close enough that I don’t have a problem with C/T not coming in with information.

2: Straight up block. Good job by Roger not to point at the RA.

[Camron Rust]

1. His feet were clearly outside of the RA when he obtained LGP. He then moved laterally and his foot briefly crossed over the RA arc, but once you have LGP outside of the arc, it doesn't matter if you then step over it.

2. Charge (if there were no RA). In the path...check. Facing...check. Two feet down....check. Just because the shooter changes paths on the jump and doesn't hit him square doesn't negate already obtained LGP. I could go with a no-call however for that reason.

[Raymond]

Play 2: Defender turns his body into shooter after shooter goes airborne.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

1. His feet were clearly outside of the RA when he obtained LGP. He then moved laterally and his foot briefly crossed over the RA arc, but once you have LGP outside of the arc, it doesn't matter if you then step over it.

Agreed -- and even if it did matter (or there wasn't LGP before) then there is LGP after and outside the arc. I think this can be reviewed.

2. Charge (if there were no RA). In the path...check. Facing...check. Two feet down....check. Just because the shooter changes paths on the jump and doesn't hit him square doesn't negate already obtained LGP. I could go with a no-call however for that reason.

That's my thought on the first play through. I didn't watch beyond that.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Play 2: Defender turns his body into shooter after shooter goes airborne.

My thoughts exactly, and I’m normally one for going charge when in doubt.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

2. Charge (if there were no RA). In the path...check. Facing...check. Two feet down....check. Just because the shooter changes paths on the jump and doesn't hit him square doesn't negate already obtained LGP. I could go with a no-call however for that reason.

With all the clear charges that get shown on this forum that you think are blocks, I’m surprised this is your response.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

My thoughts exactly, and I’m normally one for going charge when in doubt.

With all the clear charges that get shown on this forum that you think are blocks, I’m surprised this is your response.

That happens when you judge plays by the rules instead of by the seat of your pants.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That happens when you judge plays by the rules instead of by the seat of your pants.

By this logic, you would agree that play #2 is a block.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

By this logic, you would agree that play #2 is a block.

If we were to judge with the RA rule, yes. But that wan't the question. The question was about what it would be if there were no RA. What part of LGP did the player not have? By rule??

[sdoebler]

If you freeze the play at :14 when contact is made the defender is perpendicular to the offensive player. The contact happens against his hip, block with or without RA imo.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If we were to judge with the RA rule, yes. But that wan't the question. The question was about what it would be if there were no RA. What part of LGP did the player not have? By rule??

Because the shooter was airborne and then the defender moved toward him creating the contact. And no, this is not the same as bracing for the imminent crash. What this defender did was illegal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Because the shooter was airborne and then the defender moved toward him creating the contact. And no, this is not the same as bracing for the imminent crash. What this defender did was illegal.

The defender was moving left to right with contact on the left shoulder. He rotated while moving that direction but his net direction of movement was away.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The defender was moving left to right with contact on the left shoulder. He rotated while moving that direction but his net direction of movement was away.

The defender moved the left portion of his body into the Airborne shooter. That is going to be a block all day long on the NCAA Men's side. The NCAA men's rule-makers do not want the defenders moving into airborne players.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The defender moved the left portion of his body into the Airborne shooter. That is going to be a block all day long on the NCAA Men's side. The NCAA men's rule-makers do not want the defenders moving into airborne players.

And I would rule a block in NFHS as well, and doubt I would catch any heat from people whose opinions matter. Also, the rules support a block.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The defender moved the left portion of his body into the Airborne shooter. That is going to be a block all day long on the NCAA Men's side. The NCAA men's rule-makers do not want the defenders moving into airborne players.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I don't think that is actually what happened. Not what I see in the video anyway.