What do you have???

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

I'm going to vehemently but respectfully disagree with those of you who felt there was "absolutely no collision". That shooter did not wind up landing flat on his stomach on his own.

There might have been some contact, but collision is a bit much. And that is why some people's judgment is considered good and other are considered bad. Someone is going to think you or I are wrong. I can live with my judgment on this.

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

I'm going to vehemently but respectfully disagree with those of you who felt there was "absolutely no collision". That shooter did not wind up landing flat on his stomach on his own.

I'm TOTALLY with you on this. The defender clearly DID NOT STOP and establish guarding position and disrupted the balance of the shooter. Think RSBQ. No supervisor will ever question calling a blocking foul, but a no call or PC?? Hmmmmmm.......

[Adam]

He doesn't have to stop to establish or maintain LGP. Doesn't have to be set, and doesn't have to stop.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The shooter was out of control and just because he fell does not warrant a foul.

Gosh darn you JRut.... I was going to leave this alone and then you have to chime in w/ another gem. You can't honestly believe the offensive player was out of control... Please tell me you are joking???

I've watched this clip a 100x times and never once did I even remotely think the dribbler was out of control.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Gosh darn you JRut.... I was going to leave this alone and then you have to chime in w/ another gem. You can't honestly believe the offensive player was out of control... Please tell me you are joking???

I've watched this clip a 100x times and never once did I even remotely think the dribbler was out of control.

You obviously have not read my previous comments. And I clearly do not buy into your take on this play. If the defender did anything wrong, it is because the shooter lucked out. I am sorry; players under control do not fall away from the person they run into. The shooter could have did a jump shot or even passed the ball away. No one told him to do Michael Jordan and try to fly over someone. This player obviously is not that good.

And once again, the officials in this game passed on calling anything. I know that is one fact you want to keep dismissing, but it is still the biggest fact of all.

Peace

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He doesn't have to stop to establish or maintain LGP. Doesn't have to be set, and doesn't have to stop.

The rule book doesn't say the defender must STOP. However, it states this:

NCAA 4.35. A4 - Guarding: to establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball,
b.The guard's torso shall face the opponent
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court

The position of the defender and the nature of the contact caused him to fall to his right (the left from our view) and the shooter to fall to his right (the rightside of the screen). The defender isn't in legal guarding position because his torso did not face the opponent (his left shoulder was the first part of the body hit by the airborne shooter). If the defender gets hit in the chest, then I'll go with the PC. But he got hit on the shoulder so I have a block. In addition, it looks as the shooter is already airborne before the defender got there on time. Based on that, I have another reason to call a block.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

The rule book doesn't say the defender must STOP. However, it states this:

NCAA 4.35. A4 - Guarding: to establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball,
b.The guard's torso shall face the opponent
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court

The position of the defender and the nature of the contact caused him to fall to his right (the left from our view) and the shooter to fall to his right (the rightside of the screen). The defender isn't in legal guarding position because his torso did not face the opponent (his left shoulder was the first part of the body hit by the airborne shooter). If the defender gets hit in the chest, then I'll go with the PC. But he got hit on the shoulder so I have a block. In addition, it looks as the shooter is already airborne before the defender got there on time. Based on that, I have another reason to call a block.

For the record, the NF took out the reference to the "chest" as apart of requiring a PC Foul if the defender was hit in the chest. Even your rule reference does not show that (and you will not find it there in other references or interpretations). They did that about 5 years ago with an editorial change. And all that is required is the defender face the ball handler at one time, the rule does not suggest that he stay that way. And the defender was clearly facing the defender at one time.

Peace

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am sorry; players under control do not fall away from the person they run into.

Blanket statements like this are just not true. If it was a break away for the offensive player and uncontested do you think the offensive player would have fallen like that on his own???

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The shooter could have did a jump shot or even passed the ball away. No one told him to do Michael Jordan and try to fly over someone. This player obviously is not that good.

Another blanket statement. How can you tell a player is "not that good" by him making one drive to the basket??? Secondly he went up for layup. I hardly think he was trying to "fly over someone".

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And once again, the officials in this game passed on calling anything. I know that is one fact you want to keep dismissing, but it is still the biggest fact of all.

Most of us would agree that there were multiple things that were missed on this play as well as a lack of hustle and anticipation. They might not be our best resource on this play.

That hole your digging is getting deeper JRut.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Blanket statements like this are just not true. If it was a break away for the offensive player and uncontested do you think the offensive player would have fallen like that on his own???

You are really missing the point of what I am saying. If you are under control, you hardly ever run into another player. He obviously was going to be defended based on the video. So a player that does a spin move and fall had to be fouled if we us your logic. And that was the very same example I gave in this thread about 10 pages ago.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Another blanket statement. How can you tell a player is "not that good" by him making one drive to the basket??? Secondly he went up for layup. I hardly think he was trying to "fly over someone".

If you are going to accuse me of making a blanket statement, then why are you calling a foul based on how someone falls? At least I am looking at what I perceive the contact or lack of contact to be. I have never in this discussion used the type of contact as a justification of my point, except to illustrate what the rule clearly says about incidental contact. To this day you have not responded other than, “I think you are wrong.”

You have this entire thread argued how the player fell and used that as the threshold of why there should be a foul. Actually you are not the only one that has done that. If he landed on his feet, would you advocate a foul then too? I know I have called fouls on plays like this and no one fell to the floor. Based on what I am reading from you, they fall, you call a foul.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Most of us would agree that there were multiple things that were missed on this play as well as a lack of hustle and anticipation. They might not be our best resource on this play.

That hole your digging is getting deeper JRut.

First of all what I am digging a hole for. I still have many games for this coming year despite what we discuss here. And getting beat happens all the time on plays and just because you "think" there was a foul, the officials still passed on the call. There was another official on the other side that also could have made a call if they felt they needed to. For some reason, he passed too. I guess that is a fact you cannot get around.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

The rule book doesn't say the defender must STOP. However, it states this:

NCAA 4.35. A4 - Guarding: to establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball,
b.The guard's torso shall face the opponent
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court

The position of the defender and the nature of the contact caused him to fall to his right (the left from our view) and the shooter to fall to his right (the rightside of the screen). The defender isn't in legal guarding position because his torso did not face the opponent (his left shoulder was the first part of the body hit by the airborne shooter). If the defender gets hit in the chest, then I'll go with the PC. But he got hit on the shoulder so I have a block. In addition, it looks as the shooter is already airborne before the defender got there on time. Based on that, I have another reason to call a block.

To add to Rut's point about the chest reference being removed; it's only a rule of thumb. 1. Defender had his torso facing, with two feet down, just barely in time; in my opinion. The official's head (and the video quality) prevent us from knowing for sure. 2. The shooter then attempts to jump to his right to get the shot off and avoid the charge call; losing his balance in the process.

3. You note that the defender falls to his right, I noticed that, too. His right is the wrong direction based on where the shooter falls. To me, it's an ovious flop that prevents him from drawing a charge call. This is the only thing the defender does wrong, IMO.

[Adam]

Okay, reviewing the frame by frame, the angle and distance prevent any positive statements, IMO. It's too far, the camera is straightlined, and the film is too grainy. Obviously, Dad taking the video thinks otherwise; thus the video making it to youtube.

The defensive players movement between frames 4 and 5 can easily be explained if you think contact occured between the frames as well. But you really can't tell for sure when contact occurred. I think B1 starts his flop here, also explaining the change in position relative to the all important pole on the wall.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There might have been contact, but not at all was there a collision. The contact had to be slight at best.

That is why I said "Let's, for a moment, assume that there was simply a collision ..."

It was to seperate the specific play in the video to a more general situation where we all agree that there was a collision.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even in the little break down, there is space between the chest of the defender and the shooter.

Agreed, but that is not the foul I'm seeing. If that was the case contact in the chest), I'd rule the defender as having made it to the spot. I saw it as the defenders shoulder clipping the shooter near the waist as the defender shifted into the shooter.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And the way the player fell, clearly shows that the contact did not result in the falling of the shooter.

I think it directly caused the shooter to fall. It was precisely the kind of reaction that occurs when the contact occurs as I described above.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The shooter was out of control and just because he fell does not warrant a foul.

I disagree here too. The shooter when up as shooters usually go up. He wasn't twisting and turning and throwing up a prayer. He when straight to the basket and got off a good shot (except that it got blocked).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There has to be something illegal, not just the end result of what we “think” happen. And that is the point that many of us are making. If we make calls simply because someone fell, then we are going to make a lot of bad calls as a result.

Peace

I'm using the reaction of the shooter with the understanding basic physics as a confirmation of the contact I see. The physical impact on the shooter seals the judgement for what would have otherwise been a nocall.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

3. You note that the defender falls to his right, I noticed that, too. His right is the wrong direction based on where the shooter falls. To me, it's an ovious flop that prevents him from drawing a charge call. This is the only thing the defender does wrong, IMO.

Take two billiard balls and have them hit such that the impact is substantially off center in the same manner the two players came together. Their direction after impact will cause them to split....one to the right, one to the left. The shooter has the most momentum so he continued more forward than to the side but was still deflected to the right. The slower moving object (defender) will be deflected mostly to the left...and little to the back.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, reviewing the frame by frame, the angle and distance prevent any positive statements, IMO. It's too far, the camera is straightlined, and the film is too grainy. Obviously, Dad taking the video thinks otherwise; thus the video making it to youtube.

I'll agree you can't necessarily tell exactly when there was contact and you can't also tell anything about forward defensive movement, but you can determine when the shooter was airborne and lateral defensive movement after that time and that the movement is inconsistent with prior contact. And that is all we need to know. Lateral defensive movement is the one thing you can still see perfectly even when straightlined.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The defensive players movement between frames 4 and 5 can easily be explained if you think contact occured between the frames as well. But you really can't tell for sure when contact occurred. I think B1 starts his flop here, also explaining the change in position relative to the all important pole on the wall.

OK...let's assume contact started between 4 and 5.

The shooter's waist was even with the defender's waist in frame 3 (shoulder to shoulder too). In frame 4, the shooter waist is even with the defender's shoulder. While you can't see the shooter's feet, there is no other explanation than for the shooter to already be in the air before frame 4....just too much elevation to be anything else. Now, if the shooter had contacted the defender prior to frame 5, it would have caused the defender to be knocked towards the basket but he wasn't...so there was no contact before frame 5.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Brad

Traveling on green post player for sure.

Blocking foul on other end and it is not even close.

Good block -- not goaltending.

Yup, yup, and yup. Sure looked like (can't see the ball, but based on his actions) the green player had clean possession of the ball when he decided to audition for "So You Think You Can Dance." Obviously if not, no travel.