Vid request - Georgetown/Illinois - ARC
 

With 8:07 left in first half, GT player drives. Secondary defender tries to take a charge. Big time official (forgot name) signals a block, hesitates, and then emphatically indicates that defender was in the ARC. Replay suggest otherwise and not close. I found it strange that the L official could sell a call so strongly but yet appear to be so incorrect. Only guess is that he thought he saw something that was not there. Like maybe straightlined or something. Defender had his foot in the ARC but clearly brought it out during the contact.....at least in my opinion. Just seemed odd.

Future Problems For Connecticut ...
 

Restricted area. If the NFHS goes that way, it will be yet another reason why Connecticut should go to three persons crews, the other reason being if the NFHS goes to a shot clock.

I just picked up my second subvarsity doubleheader. Looks like I'm going to be the "go to" guy for afternoon games now that I'm retired from my day job. If these doubleheaders keep stacking up, three person crews will start looking much more appealing to me.

Didn't see the play, but based on that description, it could still be a block because of the RA

"During" indicates that his foot was still in/on the arc when contact was initiated.

Perhaps to you it does but not to me and therefore it is not what was meant. I will say it this way. Defender had his foot in the ARC and then clearly had it well outside the arc. Offensive player then jumped into him.

Overall, from the description it seems like the lead called the block and then immediately regretted it, and then tried to sell the call by claiming it was an RA block.

Of course video never lies. Perhaps not his finest moment? We’ve all been there...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure the rule says something like "the secondary defender shall not establish INITIAL legal guarding position in the RA." Maybe that's what happened, so even if he was out before the contact, it might still be an RA-block.

If the secondary defender established LGP in the RA, then it is a RA block even if his foot was no longer in the RA at the time of contact.

I'm waiting for video before I pass judgment.

All the more reason to be VERY judicious in using the RA block signal -- if you have a partner bring you information or have use of a monitor you are saying: "this would have been a charge except for the RA". If definite information arises that the defender was outside, you MUST change it to a charge.

The rule clearly states that being in or over the arc is an element of the secondary defender rule.

Rule 4-17 Art. 7. A secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position in the restricted area for the purposes of drawing an offensive foul on a player who is in control of the ball (i.e., dribbling or shooting) or who has released the ball for a pass or try for goal. When illegal contact occurs within this restricted area, such contact shall be called a blocking foul, unless the contact is flagrant.

Excellent citation. It also shows a couple of concepts that are easy to get confused (initial LGP vs. contact within). Maybe this is the calculus the official was going through and he just made a mental mistake?

Agree we need to see the video before we render any formal critique.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is possible to establish a "new" LGP outside the arc. If they get the foot back down outside, and meet the other requirements, the fact that initial LGP was in the arc is irrelevant.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wkENkFX1pds" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Offensive foul, defender's right foot is initially inside the RA but he moves it forward and obtains LGP before the shooter leaves the floor. Tough play though. Should have reviewed the RA status on the monitor.

Initial LGP established outside. Therefore if he maintains it, the RA isn’t in play. BUT...when the defender moved toward the shooter slightly when repositioning his right foot, he was not maintaining LGP. So at this point the initial establishment of LGP had been re-started...from the RA.

Ultimately the L seemed to determine that the defender did not re-establish LGP outside the RA before the shooter left the floor. That must be why he pointed to the RA. The video shows that this was a CI and it wasn’t really that close. Should have been a PC foul; I had it as a 90/10 charge and that’s being conservative.

This shows just how hard it is to judge the RA and the two involved players at the same time. Would have liked to have seen C come in and offer help here. I wonder if he had an opinion?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That can only be done in the last 2 minutes of regulation or overtime.

John Gaffney is a good official, but he got this play wrong. Maybe the Trail could have helped out if he had been sideline oriented.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It's also very close as to whether the defender had LGP before the shooter was airborne (but I think he did).

Didn't NCAAM used to have some sort of "upward motion" component on this play?

A lot for the lead to process here.

Yeah, that lasted one season before they went back to the current rule.

Yes, and it made it impossible for the Lead to officiate because he was supposed check for the legality of the secondary defender starting with his feet while also determining if the offensive player had begun his upward motion. Total cluster...