Watta ya got video?

[Adam]

OS, you say the defender broke rule 4-27-5 because he was "late." But he wasn't "late" by rule. If his feet were touching and he was facing the opponent prior to the shooter's last moment touching the floor, then he wasn't late.
By what standard do you say he was late?

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Old School

and I'm not saying I'm correct on this

WOW we agree on something, I am not saying you are correct either LOL

Originally Posted by Old School

If you just approach it from the standpoint of the book and this one rule which is what I hear you saying. You got a rulebook call.

Wow, you are right we wouldn't want one of those. Anything but a call that agrees with the rulebook......

Originally Posted by Old School

The defensive player would have done better in my book, had he not went for the CHARGE and just went to defend the basket. .

Yes I can see that now, the defender made a terrible choice, one that allowed them to win the game in the 2nd OT..I bet he had to run extra laps for this....bad bad bad, you know they aren't bad kids they just make bad choices LOL :P

Originally Posted by Old School

The offensive player had too much momentum going to try and cutoff with the charge.

Yes I can see he had no chance what so ever to get there in time to have an official call a Charge...

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Again, as long you have your book there, can you quote me a rule that hasn't already been posted previously by other people on this thread? Iow, please show us you really do have a book, and that this statement is not an outright lie.

For example, you mentioned earlier in this thread about "habitual motion". Can you cite the rule that mentions habitual motion?

Rule 4-11-1. 04/05 book, my 06/07 book is packed away in my bag that I carry with me to all my games. This is not about me, it's not about OS, and it's certainly not about whether I have a rulebook or not.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

Rule 4-11-1. 04/05 book, my 06/07 book is packed away in my bag that I carry with me to all my games. This is not about me, it's not about OS, and it's certainly not about whether I have a rulebook or not.

Good, I'm impressed you know the rule number. Can you tell the wording in the rule that corresponds with your statement?:

Originally Posted by Old School

And finally, we talk about habitual motion. When is the player in the act of shooting. Once the player starts his H/M, he is now in the act of shooting. Defensive player runs underneath him, easy block call. Offensive player is allowed to return to the floor.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Old School

The defensive player would have done better in my book, had he not went for the CHARGE and just went to defend the basket. Taking everything into consideration, this was the best choice left on the table, depend the basket, try to block the shot. The offensive player had too much momentum going to try and cutoff with the charge. Enter R4-27-5. When you look at the collision in this play, you can see it's not your patient contact to the torso charge. It's more of a train wreck where we got to people converging on the same point at the same time. At best, you should be thinking incidental contact, enter R4-27-5.

What do you mean by "defend the basket"? Trying to block the shot?

In FIBA rules the word "momentum" is used only once, when it is said that if an airborne player lands and his/her momentum causes him/her to contact an opponent who has LGP beyond the landing place, then the formerly airborne player is responsible for the contact.

In NCAA rules the word appears more often. Let's pick where also contacts are involved. Go to page 77, A.R. 72: again, the offensive player whose momentum causes the contact is responsible for it.

I don't have NFHS rules, but I strongly believe that they don't contain a line to support your thesis.

There is no request for a patent torso contact in the rules. The offensive player contacted the torso of a defensive player who had LGP. It is true that it was a contact between two players converging to the same place, but you seem to forget that one of them had the ball!

Originally Posted by Old School

The intelligent enforcement of the rule should have been a block. Calling a charge on this play, unfairly punishes good offensive basketball.

A charge on this play is a tough call, I applaud RookieDude for calling it. It recognizes good defense. I was always taught that the ball handler must expect to be guarded until the very last moment, when on the floor. He had one foot on the floor when the opponent obtained LGP: charge. His momentum has nothing to do with the choice of the call: he was required by the rules to avoid the contact.

A block could have been a reasonable call, after all it was a question of centimeters (sorry, inches ) and sometimes officials make mistakes. But the correct call was a charge and the slow-motion supports this. A no-call is not to be considered in any case, in this play.

If by "intelligent" you mean "hey, it's a tough call, let's go with a foul on the defense", then you are not a real basketball official.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Good, I'm impressed you know the rule number. Can you tell the wording in the rule that corresponds with your statement?:

Okay, I see you're trying to twist me up here. This is still interesting reading on this play. Again, if you get to hung up on the detail of the rule itself, you will undoubtly miss the play. R4-11-2 states that:

If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These priviledges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Old School

Okay, I see you're trying to twist me up here. This is still interesting reading on this play. Again, if you get to hung up on the detail of the rule itself, you will undoubtly miss the play. R4-11-2 states that:

If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These priviledges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.

all well and good, but doesn't play a part in this play. The opponent didn't foul, the ballhandler did.....and really no one is trying to twist you up...you are like a windsock in a tornado LOL....

[Adam]

Unreal. You quote the rule, and still think when the shot motion started has any bearing on this call at all. LGP is required before the shooter becomes airborne; it is not required to be established before the shooter becomes a shooter. Absolutely unreal.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Unreal. You quote the rule, and still think when the shot motion started has any bearing on this call at all. LGP is required before the shooter becomes airborne; it is not required to be established before the shooter becomes a shooter. Absolutely unreal.

Every time he posts something - and I mean EVERY time - he proves what an a$$ he is...someone really seriously needs to yank his IP address off of here - he does nothing but try to screw people up with his gibberish...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

You are completely wrong on this. Go back and read the book.

Yes, but he wasn't sure, which is my point. The video supported his call, however, how can you make a decision that's going to decide the game and you not be sure? That's my point!

Some of you have also gone with the no-call analogy on this play at the basket to decide the game. Though I do not agree with that position, I can certainly respect how you got there. The timing was such that you couldn't pick a culprit. However, I believe I have found a definitive answer to this position and my position.

Rule:4-27-5. If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from an a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

To me, the defender was late getting there, regardless of the fact he got his feet set a split second b/4 the contact, so he is the player in the most unfavorable position, therefore, he is responsible for the contact. You certainly cannot say the offensive player is in the unfavorable position. We're also certainly bordering on incidental contact here, a no-call. In fact, I was real close to a no-call myself but I'm not letting that much of a collision go without coming up with something. My decision was against the player in the most unfavorable position, the defense.

Old School:

We all agree with you that A1 started his act of shooting when he picked up his dribble, but that still has nothing to do with when B2 obtained/established a legal guarding postion. Besides, you need to go read the definition of Continuous Motion, you will find it in Rule 4 of both the NFHS and NCAA rules books.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

I got mine here so I will help you.

Rule 4-23-4.b: ...Guarding an opponent with the ball. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal guarding position before the opponent (feet) left the floor.

This comes down to when the offensive player feet left the floor and when the defenders feet was set. This is the part we where all unsure about. It comes down to you having to watch both of their feet at the exact same time to accurately determine because it was so close.

Now that you are up to speed, would you please STFU and stay out of grown folks conversation. Your innuendo is not helping. Remember, this is not about me, this is not about OS.

Old School:

I was sure from the first time I saw the play. CHARGE!!

MTD, Sr.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Every time he posts something - and I mean EVERY time - he proves what an a$$ he is...someone really seriously needs to yank his IP address off of here - he does nothing but try to screw people up with his gibberish...

Relax, take a deep breath, and repeat after me.
It's not all about me.
Repeat, it's not all about me...

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Unreal. You quote the rule, and still think when the shot motion started has any bearing on this call at all. LGP is required before the shooter becomes airborne; it is not required to be established before the shooter becomes a shooter. Absolutely unreal.

Rule 4-27-5 does not agree with you here, imo.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Rule 4-27-5 does not agree with you here, imo.

Like I said, unreal. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Rule 4-27-5 is all about whether a foul is considered a shooting foul or not. Nowhere does it say that LGP must be established prior to the start of the shooting motion. The shooting motion can start as soon as the player picks up his dribble, which can be a step and a half before he becomes airborne. The rule you quote states what happens if the shooter is fouled. It doesn't say jack sh!t about how to determine whom the foul is on, or whether there's actually a foul.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

What do you mean by "defend the basket"? Trying to block the shot?

If you try to go CHARGE, you don't have enough time and distance to make it, imo. NFHS 4-27-5.

Originally Posted by eg-italy

If by "intelligent" you mean "hey, it's a tough call, let's go with a foul on the defense", then you are not a real basketball official.

What I mean here and I stated my position very clearly earlier in the thread. You don't have enough information by NFHS rules and standards. They want you to watch the feet of the defense to determine if he's set, which nobody at this point in the game is going to be watching anybody feet from the Lead position. You are suppose to watch from the waste up. Even if you determine that defense has LGP, how can you say honestly that the offensive player hasn't use that last step when we can barely determine from watching the damn tape afterwards. There's no way as an official at real time speed you can determine that on the offensive player. So you reason by watching the defense along, that the defender got set, charge, when you don't even know the status of the offense! This is a rulebook call, not a game time deicision call!

If your position is I don't care about the offense because I know the defense is set. That is not an intelligent decision. Again, this is a rulebook call. You have completely disregarded the offense in this play. By definition of the rules, we are supposed to create a balance of fair play. My position is simply this. The only defendable call the official can make here is a block. Anything else is a guess. We might as well remove rule 4-23-4b because you never looked at the offensive player to determine if this was true. There wasn't enough time.