West Virginia-Gonzaga

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Oh yeah, I guess that aspect would still apply. I felt like I was forgetting something in my beakdown of the play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

On this play, does it matter that the ball was loose / deflected from the BC?

Does NCAAM require LGP before the offensive player leaves the floor or before he starts any upward motion?

imo, These plays are easy BC and PC in FED and NCAAW,

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

...



Does NCAAM require LGP before the offensive player leaves the floor or before he starts any upward motion?



imo, These plays are easy BC and PC in FED and NCAAW,

At one time there was an upward motion aspect to the player control foul, but that was eliminated.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Clip 1:

I have a shooting foul on Blue 5 before the backcourt play.

As the rule is written, that is a BCV in NCAA-M. There was no change in team control and 9-12.5 only applies to defensive deflections in the frontcourt. If the spirit/intent of the rule is for this play to be legal, Art Hyland needs to issue an interpretation and the rule needs updated in the offseason. I am not faulting the crew for passing on it because it is an odd play. In FED, there is no room for debate.

The transition play is a clear PC foul. CC.

Clip 2:

When I watched it in real time I had a block and that's likely what I'd call. In slo-mo it looks like the defender is legal before the shooter goes airborne. Right foot may be in the RA but it's very close. I had to mute the sound to avoid Bilas's bloviating.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Clip 1:

I have a shooting foul on Blue 5 before the backcourt play.

As the rule is written, that is a BCV in NCAA-M. There was no change in team control and 9-12.5 only applies to defensive deflections in the frontcourt. If the spirit/intent of the rule is for this play to be legal, Art Hyland needs to issue an interpretation and the rule needs updated in the offseason. I am not faulting the crew for passing on it because it is an odd play. In FED, there is no room for debate.
....

I'm thinking that will happen. It wouldn't be the first time Art and crew failed to account for realistic scenarios when making rule changes. Attention to detail isn't their strong suit.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm thinking that will happen. It wouldn't be the first time Art and crew failed to account for realistic scenarios when making rule changes. Attention to detail isn't their strong suit.

I sent an email to JD about this because I am not convinced this is not a violation under NCAA Rules. Or at least it is not incredibly clear for sure.

Peace

[Raymond]

Do I get a gold star or something?

Originally Posted by Raymond

For the back court play, here's the wording from last year's rulebook:

9-12 Art. 5. A pass or any other loose ball (including when a player in control of the ball loses control of the ball when a defensive player bats or deflects it out of his control) in the front court that is deflected by a defensive player, which causes the ball to go into the backcourt may be recovered by either team even if the offense was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

Based on the above wording, there doesn't seem to be an exception for a ball that is batted/deflected by the defense in back court.

However, I think the spirit of the rule is not to penalize the offense with a back court violation when there is a loose ball caused by the defense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm thinking that will happen. It wouldn't be the first time Art and crew failed to account for realistic scenarios when making rule changes. Attention to detail isn't their strong suit.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Do I get a gold star or something?

You certainly get something. That was exactly what he addressed in the email. I was summarizing, but you were spot on my friend.

Peace

[Danvrapp]

Originally Posted by SC Official

In slo-mo it looks like the defender is legal before the shooter goes airborne. Right foot may be in the RA but it's very close.

Does "foot on the line" equate to "in the RA?" If he is on the line, its by a very miniscule amount. From the angle that the L has, I'm not positive he would have known for sure anyway.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

Does "foot on the line" equate to "in the RA?" If he is on the line, its by a very miniscule amount. From the angle that the L has, I'm not positive he would have known for sure anyway.

Yes. The RA is treated the same as the sideline or endline (i.e. if any part of the foot is touching, you are in). The RA is more restrictive in that even if a foot is hovering over the line, you are considered in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The RA is more restrictive in that even if a foot is hovering over the line, you are considered in.

Wow. So it doesn't follow the high school creed of, "You are where you are until you get where you're going".

Although there is at least one exception in high school to the high school creed: The three second count continues if this player lifts the foot in the lane so that neither foot is touching inside the lane. To stop the count this player must have both feet touch the court outside of the lane.