Arizona @ Utah plays (Video)
 

Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cN9GAf9x1SM" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

I don't know if I would consider that contact illegal.

RA blocking foul, Larry needs to un-twist his panties.

I have no call. That's not a call the L should make, has no angle on anything.

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.

I thought on one of the views that maybe red didn't get to the spot before blue was airborne and thus didn't give blue a spot to land (and blue stumbles). on a different view, that doesn't seem to be the case.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

Not an NCAA official, but we can parse this six ways to Sunday with NCAA rules and I’d still have a no call. I think this is one the L wants back and I think he knew it right away (evidenced by the oversell and the rope he gave to the coach).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xZ5dNWuZkVo?rel=0&amp;start=811" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

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.

Correct Call
 

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.

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

He, indeed, may have been an inch off the ground.