Layup

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Can't get nuthin' by you. You're right. I didn't say it.

Can't get nuthin' by none of us!

(what's the question again?)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

what's the question again?

Where's Chuck?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Where's Chuck?

He's at home in front of the mirror practicing his mechanics.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

He's at home in front of the mirror practicing his mechanics.

Either that or he's out buying an extra-large economy box of DEPENDS for Wednesday night.

[dkitch]

I'm relatively new to this whole reffing thing, but I would call a flagrant foul on A2. Whether or not B1 had LGP is irrelevant, since this is not a block/charge situation.

If B1 was guarding A2, and A2 punched him in the face, the foul would still be on A2 no matter what. From how you described it, Dan, A2 made deliberate contact with B1 and the contact was excessive.

Not sure of the NCAA rules, but from NFHS:

Justification for the foul is found under NFHS 10-6-1, "A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent...blah blah blah...; nor use any rough tactics.."

And for justification on the flagrant:
NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul... If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking, and kneeing..."

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by dkitch

Justification for the foul is found under NFHS 10-6-1, "A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent...blah blah blah...; nor use any rough tactics.."

And for justification on the flagrant:
NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul... If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking, and kneeing..."

Just to clarify, you're saying 10-6-1 has the foul on B1 right? Because this scenerio seems to be impeding the progress an opponent to me.

Based on the report, A2 stepped on B1 to be able to get a better shot at the basket. In other words, if B1 wasn't impeding A2's progress to the basket, A2 wouldn't have stepped on him. That all seems pretty clear to me.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Just to clarify, you're saying 10-6-1 has the foul on B1 right? Because this scenerio seems to be impeding the progress an opponent to me.

Based on the report, A2 stepped on B1 to be able to get a better shot at the basket. In other words, if B1 wasn't impeding A2's progress to the basket, A2 wouldn't have stepped on him. That all seems pretty clear to me.

That wasn't how I read it at all. I read it as A2 took an unnecessary step in order to step on B1. If A2 is looking down at B1 and then steps on him, I have a flagerant intentional foul - intent to injure. If A2 is looking at the basket in an effort to shoot and looses his balance due to B1 I have a common foul on B1.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Just to clarify, you're saying 10-6-1 has the foul on B1 right? Because this scenerio seems to be impeding the progress an opponent to me.

Based on the report, A2 stepped on B1 to be able to get a better shot at the basket. In other words, if B1 wasn't impeding A2's progress to the basket, A2 wouldn't have stepped on him. That all seems pretty clear to me.

It may be impeding, but it's not illegal -- in HS. College is different. In HS, anyone is allowed her spot, if she gets there legally, even if that place is temporarily stretched out on the floor. In HS, in this play, whether A1 looks or not, if you call a foul, it can't be a block.