Over the back, ON the back RM article

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Welpe]

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.

[Nevadaref]

His ruling on play #2 was the first thing that caught my attention.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

[Nevadaref]

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.

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps someone else will post some extracts for our bashing pleasure.

Everyone knows you are the Masterbasher.

[Nevadaref]

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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[referee99]

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.

[Adam]

I can see maybe if B3 jumped in play 2, but only maybe.
The block call, however, that's just stupid.

[Mark Padgett]

How does he know that B3 wasn't initially facing A3 (which establishes LGP) and then turned around (which maintains LGP)?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by referee99

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?

[Amesman]

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.