Arizona @ Utah plays (Video)

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not an RA block. By point to the RA, it implies that this would have been a charge except that red was in the RA -- and I don't think that's the case at all.

This isn't a block/charge play, this is a grounded play. Defenders are not allowed to be grounded in the RA, they must jump vertically to take contact and contest a shot.

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This isn't a block/charge play, this is a grounded play. Defenders are not allowed to be grounded in the RA, they must jump vertically to take contact and contest a shot.

What does that mean?

[johnny d]

Arem is correct. Contact on a shooter by a grounded secondary defender is by rule a foul on the defender. Crap rule, easy correct call.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by DrPete

What does that mean?

It means you should read a NCAA-M rule book or watch the NCAA-M videos explaining the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

It means you should read a NCAA-M rule book or watch the NCAA-M videos explaining the rule.

That is not what the rule says. The rule is clear that there must be illegal contact and the purpose of drawing an offensive foul. He was not doing that, he was defending the play and by all accounts was vertical.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is not what the rule says. The rule is clear that there must be illegal contact and the purpose of drawing an offensive foul. He was not doing that, he was defending the play and by all accounts was vertical.

Peace

Agree. I'd have a no call on that anywhere on the floor.

JD is pretty clear in the coaches rules training video from this summer that the defender must jump and may not remain grounded in the RA to contest the shot.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by AremRed

JD is pretty clear in the coaches rules training video from this summer that the defender must jump and may not remain grounded in the RA to contest the shot.

I disagree. He was clear that the defender has a right to jump up and down (Point A to Point A) in order to contest the shot, and should not be penalized if contact occurs in his vertical plane. What happens when he remains grounded while contesting the shot was not made clear, so I am to assume that such a play remains an RA block if contact occurs, even if the defender remains in his vertical plane. But I can't get my head wrapped around the concept of calling a block in this instance just because some extremely marginal contact occurred on a grounded vertical defender inside the RA. I discount any notion that this was the committee's intent.

[Multiple Sports]

Gentlemen,

Please ignore amount of contact or whether it is "legal". Defender is "grounded" in RA. L "patiently" waits to see if ball goes in basket, it does not. Lead comes late. Larry K doesn't understand rule. Easy correct call....on to the next play. If the defender gets an inch off the ground in a vertical manner we would have had a no call.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

JD is pretty clear in the coaches rules training video from this summer that the defender must jump and may not remain grounded in the RA to contest the shot.

So I just watch this video for the upteenth time and I still don't hear anywhere in the video JD say ANY contact leads to a foul. And the rule book says illegal contact.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This isn't a block/charge play, this is a grounded play. Defenders are not allowed to be grounded in the RA, they must jump vertically to take contact and contest a shot.

There has to be some form of illegal contact, by either the offense or the defense. Merely being in the RA and not jumping doesn't make it a foul

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This isn't a block/charge play, this is a grounded play. Defenders are not allowed to be grounded in the RA, they must jump vertically to take contact and contest a shot.

Unless there is illegal contact, there is no requirement for the defender to be outside of this area to avoid a foul either by jumping or standing. This would not have been a PC foul anyway. This was a vertical, legal defender that happened to get a foul called on him if the only reason the foul was called was that he was in the RA (as indicated by the official). Again, you could make a case that this was not a vertical defender, but if the if that is the case, there is not RA play at all. It would not matter if he was in the RA if he is not legal otherwise.

I actually see why he called this, but I think it was not what I would want to call personally if a big guy is standing his ground on a little guy that basically bounced off of him.

Peace