Arizona @ Utah plays (Video)

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

You would be correct. Rulebook states "illegal contact", not "all contact". I had this back-and-forth" with a coach this weekend concerning 2 plays where his team scored and there was marginal contact in the RA.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[johnny d]

You are correct that is what the rule states. However, that is not how the rule is being interpreted or presented by JD or by the powers that be in NCAA-M. At the officials meetings this fall, it was clearly presented that they do not want grounded secondary defenders challenging shots in the RA. Any contact, even contact that would be legal outside the RA, by a grounded secondary defender that causes a missed shot is to be considered illegal contact and called a foul on the defensive player. This was presented as black and white. The play in this video would clearly fall into the category of plays they want called fouls.

Originally Posted by johnny d

You are correct that is what the rule states. However, that is not how the rule is being interpreted or presented by JD or by the powers that be in NCAA-M. At the officials meetings this fall, it was clearly presented that they do not want grounded secondary defenders challenging shots in the RA. Any contact, even contact that would be legal outside the RA, by a grounded secondary defender that causes a missed shot is to be considered illegal contact and called a foul on the defensive player. This was presented as black and white. The play in this video would clearly fall into the category of plays they want called fouls.

This is how JD presented it at the meeting I was at.