Arizona @ Utah plays (Video)

[JRutledge]

Play #1:



Peace

[Raymond]

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

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

[deecee]

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

[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.

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.

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.

[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

[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.

[crosscountry55]

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.