The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 12:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,809
Over the back, ON the back RM article

Did anyone see the article on verticality by Tim Sloan in the Feb 2009 issue of RM?

I have to disagree with several of his statements and rulings.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 01:36am
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,922
I read it this morning. Out of curiosity, what did you disagree with? I am simply asking because I don't know any better myself.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 03:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,809
His ruling on play #2 was the first thing that caught my attention.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 08:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,065
Send a message via AIM to Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Send a message via MSN to Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Send a message via Yahoo to Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
His ruling on play #2 was the first thing that caught my attention.

Tim Sloan's rulings in Play #2 are completely wrong. His ruling show a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the definitions of guarding and screening as well as the priniciple of verticality.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 09:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Did anyone see the article on verticality by Tim Sloan in the Feb 2009 issue of RM?

I have to disagree with several of his statements and rulings.
Can you post a link?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 09:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,809
No, I'm not a subscriber nor do I even have a copy of the article.
Perhaps someone else will post some extracts for our bashing pleasure.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 09:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
Tim Sloan's rulings in Play #2 are completely wrong. His ruling show a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the definitions of guarding and screening as well as the priniciple of verticality.

MTD, Sr.
Don't beat around the bush Mark. Please give us your honest opinion of the article.

By the way, I'd like to read the ruling if anyone could post it as well.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 09:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Perhaps someone else will post some extracts for our bashing pleasure.

Everyone knows you are the Masterbasher.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 09:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,809
My opinion is that it is total garbage.
I don't think that the author is qualified to work freshmen games.

Is that clear enough for you?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 12:10pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
His ruling on play #2 was the first thing that caught my attention.
I'll read it again tonight and see if I can spot what is wrong with it.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 12:58pm
#thereferee99
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 617
Play 2

Play 2
A3 takes a leaning jump shot from the lane over B3. B3 is standing upright, but facing the basket with her hands extended straight upward. A3 makes contact with B3's hands and misses the shot.

Ruling 2: Foul by B3. While B3 was in a legally vertical position, she was not in a legal guarding position because she wasn't facing her opponent and should be called for blocking. Sadly, that concept is lost on the BCF.

A similar situation occurs when A3 drives the lane, picks up her dribble and then contacts B3, who is standing in the lane with her hands raised straight above her head. If B3 is facing A3, that is a charge. If B3 is not facing A3, even if she's turned away covering another player, it's a block by B3.
__________________
-- #thereferee99
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 01:01pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,051
I can see maybe if B3 jumped in play 2, but only maybe.
The block call, however, that's just stupid.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 01:13pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,795
How does he know that B3 wasn't initially facing A3 (which establishes LGP) and then turned around (which maintains LGP)?
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 01:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by referee99 View Post
Play 2
A3 takes a leaning jump shot from the lane over B3. B3 is standing upright, but facing the basket with her hands extended straight upward. A3 makes contact with B3's hands and misses the shot.

Ruling 2: Foul by B3. While B3 was in a legally vertical position, she was not in a legal guarding position because she wasn't facing her opponent and should be called for blocking. Sadly, that concept is lost on the BCF.

A similar situation occurs when A3 drives the lane, picks up her dribble and then contacts B3, who is standing in the lane with her hands raised straight above her head. If B3 is facing A3, that is a charge. If B3 is not facing A3, even if she's turned away covering another player, it's a block by B3.
So with that logic on ruling 2, If I'm recklessly motoring down the court and displace an opposing B player who has his back to me standing still, guarding another player B gets called for the foul?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2009, 01:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 532
A bit related, but not ... just for confirmation:

What would you have if A1 drives the lane, takes off with a forward-jumping bank shot and plows into stationary B2, who for some reason while guarding A2 on the wing is totally oblivious to the drive? B2 is not in LGP but rather perpendicular/sideways to A1.

Book-learning says it's a block (right?), but common sense seems to say B2 was there by her innocent self first and A1 should have avoided the contact.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm back A Pennsylvania Coach Basketball 9 Thu Feb 17, 2005 05:04pm
Back Judge Article for NFHS Green Football 0 Fri Aug 27, 2004 07:53pm
Over and back Dubby Basketball 11 Wed Feb 05, 2003 07:45pm
over-n-back kld9 Basketball 2 Fri Jan 24, 2003 03:00pm
Over and Back ZEBRA Basketball 2 Sun Jan 19, 2003 04:40am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1