L of a play

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Billy, my parents were each in 9th grade, 2000 miles away from each other in 1968; yet I know what it is.

Jets fan? Raiders fan? NFL fan?

In 1968, I was a high school sophomore, and was actually watching the game, on WNBC, Channel 4, New York, when it switched over to Heidi. I didn't think it was a big deal at the time, until I read the sports section of the New Haven Register the next day.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It means that as long as they have LGP, they can legally jump and/or extend their arms straight up....even if it results in contact.

I don't believe there was LGP in the OP. B2 never faced A2.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I don't believe there was LGP in the OP. B2 never faced A2.

ok, so he can't jump, but certainly can raise his arms and he can definitively stand straight up without a call.

And in Nevada's alternate play, LGP was established. And to answer his question, yes I'm going to allow B1 in that case to raise his arms into the shooter's arms.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Jets fan? Raiders fan? NFL fan?

In 1968, I was a high school sophomore, and was actually watching the game, on WNBC, Channel 4, New York, when it switched over to Heidi. I didn't think it was a big deal at the time, until I read the sports section of the New Haven Register the next day.

NFL fan. Never seen Heidi.

That snafu has gone down as the biggest production blunder in TV history.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only foul supported by the rules in this play would be on A2. B2 has only done what the rules expressly permit him to do.

4-23-3d. The guard may raise hands or jump with his/her own vertical space.

It doesn't say they can do so as long as there is no contact. It doesn't say they can only do so as long as no opponent has extended their arms over them. It means that as long as they have LGP, they can legally jump and/or extend their arms straight up....even if it results in contact.

Imagine rebounding action where B2 has his arms over A1 when A1 jumps up for the rebound. Do we call that foul on A1? No. B2 was in A1's vertical space and fouled A1 by having his arms extended in outside of his own vertical space where contact occurred. We call the foul on B2 even if his arms where there first.

Who causes the contact is irrelevant, it is about who is in an illegal position when contact occurs.

Obviously, I couldn't disagree more.

1. LGP is not a factor in the rebounding play, so you can't cite a rule discussing that to support your opinion.

2. Use "you" instead of "we" because I certainly don't call a foul on B2 in your example.

3. Even if the play involved LGP, such as the example that I gave, you are still in error because you believe this, [referring to 4-23-3d] "It doesn't say they can do so as long as there is no contact," and this, "Who causes the contact is irrelevant, it is about who is in an illegal position when contact occurs."

You are failing to understand that 4-23-3d must be taken in the context of what is written about guarding in 4-23-1. Those are the basics of guarding and everything that is stated there applies to the later articles.

4-23-1 "... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

That's the guiding principle. (There are exceptions for airborne and fast moving players.)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And in Nevada's alternate play, LGP was established. And to answer his question, yes I'm going to allow B1 in that case to raise his arms into the shooter's arms.

Picture George Gervin leaping into the air and extending his arm horizontally as he executes a finger-roll lay-up above the head of an opponent. Now you are going to allow this opponent to thrust his hands and arms straight up into Gervin's extended arm and cause him to miss the shot?

I suggest that you rethink your opinion.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

NFL fan. Never seen Heidi.

That snafu has gone down as the biggest production blunder in TV history.

I was born in '70, but I read about this snafu in one of those classic NFL books that were published in the mid-70's in my elementary library. It always stuck out in my mind, and I asked my dad about it once. He said it was probably the greatest football game he never got to see the end of. My sister (10 years older than I) always ragged dad, saying it was the best preempting of a sports event ever. Now that dad's gone, and my sister has been traveling watching her son play college ball, she says it was the worse thing ever.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That snafu has gone down as the biggest production blunder in TV history.

In 1961, Wisconsin station WISN-TV, a then-CBS affiliate, opted not to carry that year's annual telecast of The Wizard of Oz, running a Green Bay Packers football game instead. In contrast to the Heidi telecast, the popularity of The Wizard of Oz as an annual TV event at that time was such that the station was forced to run the movie locally at a later date.

On June 25, 1963, in the second to last over of the 2nd Test match between the England and West Indies cricket teams at Lord's, the BBC left the match for the scheduled news at 5:50 p.m., even though England only needed eight runs to win and the West Indies two wickets and a draw or tie was also possible. However, Kenneth Adam, Director of Television and a cricket fan was watching and managed to order the news off the air and a return to the cricket. So the first news story, which was about President John F. Kennedy, was faded out and the last part of the match was shown, which ended in a draw with England at 228-9, six runs short of winning.

On December 22, 1968, CBS interrupted coverage of a Western Conference championship game between the Minnesota Vikings and Baltimore Colts in order to show a broadcast of the Apollo 8 mission. The interruption began approximately three minutes before halftime of the game, and lasted 17 minutes. CBS showed highlights of the missed action (which involved no scoring) when the network returned to football; nonetheless, the network received approximately 3,000 complaints after the game.

On September 26, 1981, the scheduled Major League Baseball Game of the Week between the Detroit Tigers and Milwaukee Brewers had ended, and the NBC affiliate in Buffalo, NY, WGRZ, picked up the network's backup game, a Houston Astros-Los Angeles Dodgers contest in which Nolan Ryan was pitching his lone National League no-hitter. However, the coverage suddenly ended just as the ninth inning started, when the local station cut away to regular programming. WGRZ felt duty-bound to present a naval training film--Life Aboard an Aircraft Carrier.

In 1982 the team handball world championships were played in West Germany. The final stood between USSR and Yugoslavia and went into double overtime. In Denmark, the game was broadcast on Danmarks Radio (DR), then the only television station in Denmark. During overtime, the game was cut off for a scheduled newscast. The anchor promised that the final minute of the game would be shown following the newscast. A couple of minutes into the news, the phone on the newsreader's desk rang (they did not use earpieces then). He answered it: "Yes... right now? ...yes", then hung up and told viewers that they would rejoin the game. As it turned out, the chief executive of DR television had been watching the game at home and was so displeased with the cutoff that he called the studio and gave a direct order to resume the broadcast of the game.

Up until the mid 1980s, Hockey Night in Canada also used to switch from the end of late running games to show the start of The National. Dave Hodge once threw a pencil in the air after he had to announce CBC's decision to not show the end of an overtime game, and was subsequently fired.

On May 16, 2001, another NHL hockey game on the CBC was abruptly cut off on CBUT Vancouver at 7:58 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time during the second overtime of a playoff game involving two American teams, as the provincial polls were about to close, even though the election was a predicted landslide. The CBC had the ability to warn its viewers in BC that they would switch to election coverage at around 8 pm (through text scrolls, overtime intermission news breaks), yet failed to do so and thereby surprised viewers with the sudden cutoff.

In 2001, NBC affiliate, WSLS-TV, in Roanoke, Virginia cut away from live coverage of the GNC Live Well 300 Busch Series event from Homestead-Miami Speedway with 7 laps to go to show an infomercial for Ab Roller Plus.

In 2000, the NASCAR Busch Series Albertson's 300 from Texas Motor Speedway was delayed by rain for over 4 hours. CBS switched to a Final Four pregame show at 4 p.m. EST, stating that the race would resume live on TNN, which was then a sister cable network, whenever it started (the race was cut to TNN at 4 pm ET the previous year because of the NCAA Final Four Pre-Game Show). However, at 6 pm ET, a crawl on the bottom of the screen on TNN said that due to continuing delays, the race would not be broadcast (even though the race actually restarted at about the time the crawl came on the screen). The program on at the time of the crawl was a children's cartoon movie called An American Tail: Fievel Goes West. Some attribute this incident to new Viacom management which had taken over CBS Cable operations in advance of Viacom's takeover of CBS (which was official a month later), and ignored the CBS Charlotte division that ran the network's motorsports operations, which was shut down by MTV that November. In 2001, MTV Networks, the division of Viacom that ran TNN, was sued by two auto racing sanctioning bodies (American Speed Association and World of Outlaws) for breach of contracts CBS had signed; CBS had owned 25% of the American Speed Association, which they purchased after losing NASCAR rights at the end of the 2000 season, and extended their World of Outlaws contract after also losing NHRA rights. This led to the demise of the original American Speed Association, and a short-lived split in winged dirt sprint car racing. Viacom still owns the re-named Spike TV, but the CBS network's parent company was spun off into CBS Corporation in 2005.

In 2004, ABC cut away from the final round of the Buick Open PGA Tour golf tournament at 7 p.m. ET to show a rerun of America's Funniest Home Videos. Three players were involved in a sudden-death shootout when ABC signed off. Again, this was only in the Eastern and Central time zones; West Coast viewers stuck with ABC until the end.

In 2004, during the coverage of a cricket test match in Australia where Shane Warne was on the verge of becoming the sport's highest ever wicket-taker, instead of staying with the cricket, the Nine Network instead cut to a game show, The Price is Right.

On April 24, 2005, as the San Marino Grand Prix reached its climax, and Fernando Alonso and Michael Schumacher were fighting for the win, ITV went to a 2' 30" advert break and missed the final 3 laps.

On April 30, 2006, viewers of ABC7 Monterey (a special cable version of ABC-owned KGO-TV in San Francisco for the Monterey market, which does not have an ABC affiliate), did not see the end of a National Basketball Association playoff game between the Phoenix Suns and the Los Angeles Lakers. The feed was cut off with one minute remaining in the overtime period in favor of an infomercial advertising a DVD, The Best of the Dean Martin Variety Show. Viewers missed Kobe Bryant's game-winning shot at the buzzer. The shot gave the Lakers a 3-games-to-1 lead in the series; however, the Lakers lost the series by dropping the final three games.

[BillyMac]

An April 11, 2007 NHL first round Stanley Cup playoff Game 1, which had the Dallas Stars playing in Vancouver against the Canucks, went into quadruple overtime. The game, which started at 10:00 p.m. ET aired in the United States on Versus, and lasted 5 1/2 hours, but was interrupted on some cable systems in the fourth overtime period by an infomercial, preventing viewers from watching Vancouver score the winning goal two minutes before the start of a fifth overtime, and win, 5-4. It is somewhat common for some cable systems to sell their own infomercial time on networks during non-programming overnight hours. After hearing complaints from viewers, Versus stated it would review its policies to prevent this from happening again, and try to figure out what triggered the infomercial to air.

On May 19, 2007 NHL Eastern Conference Finals of the Stanley Cup playoffs Game 5, which had the Ottawa Senators playing in Buffalo against the Buffalo Sabres, went into overtime. The game, which started at 2:00 p.m. ET aired in the United States on NBC. NBC pre-empted overtime coverage outside of the Buffalo and Rochester areas though in order to show pre-race coverage of the 2007 Preakness Stakes. The remainder of the game was televised on Versus. However, some cable providers do not carry Versus; thus, some viewers were unable to see the game's end which resulted in an Ottawa victory and their first ever trip to the Stanley Cup finals. The deciding goal of the hockey playoff game ended up being scored an hour before the actual Preakness race was run. However, according to the Hollywood Reporter, the first half-hour of horse racing preshow coverage earned a 3.8 rating, whereas the last half-hour of hockey, which immediately preceded it, had just a 1.5.

On May 26, 2007, only the first 19 laps of NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series Ohio 250 race were shown on Fox, due to a long rain delay that followed. When it ended nearly three hours later, the broadcast window had ended and regional telecasts of Major League Baseball replaced it. SPEED showed the entire race, with Fox graphics and other production elements, on tape delay at 11 p.m. ET that night. The oddity of this situation was that SPEED Channel showed live continuing coverage of the race from when it resumed on lap 20 at about 5:30 p.m. ET. However, when it started raining again on lap 107 at about 6:45 p.m. ET, SPEED Channel left the race and said that the conclusion would be seen on tape-delay at 11 p.m. ET under terms of NASCAR's television contractual restrictions. Under terms of NASCAR's television contracts (one for each national series), two live NASCAR broadcasts of different national series are prohibited from airing at the same time. ESPN2 was scheduled to begin live coverage of the Busch Series Carquest Auto Parts 300 from Lowe's Motor Speedway at 7:30 p.m. ET with NASCAR Countdown.)

In probably the most similar incident to the actual Heidi Bowl, an August 18, 2007 Canadian Football League game between the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Edmonton Eskimos was delayed for 55 minutes with Edmonton leading 32-27 due to thunderstorms at Mosaic Stadium in Regina. The CBC subsequently switched to a film, The Good Thief, starring Nick Nolte. By the time the game resumed, senior managers had turned off their cell phones for the evening and were unreachable, and an employee in the CBC programming department subsequently took control of the situation and refused to switch the network back to the game, except in Saskatchewan. The Roughriders subsequently scored 12 points and won the game 39-32. A senior manager of CBC Sports later criticized their network's failure to show the entire game live from coast to coast, and the network eventually broadcast the game on tape delay the following evening. However, the CBC has refused to discipline (or even name) the employee responsible.

On September 30, 2007, ESPN coverage of the LifeLock 400 from Kansas Speedway was switched from ABC to ESPN2 between the second rain delay at 6 p.m. in order for local ABC affiliates in the Eastern and Central time zones to air local news, ABC World News Tonight, and then to show ABC's primetime schedule. This was contrary to a recent NASCAR practice which is for a race that runs long because of rain delay to finish on the broadcast network. The practice began in 2002 when the UAW-GM Quality 500 at Lowe's Motor Speedway on NBC was delayed by rain; NBC stayed with the broadcast, instead of moving it to TNT, allowing Jamie McMurray's upset win to be broadcast on network television in primetime. The practice continued was kept by both Fox and NBC afterwards, and pushed other races (notably the Daytona 500) into primetime intentionally. In April 2005, the Aaron's 312 Busch Series race at Talladega Superspeedway had a three hour rain delay, starting shortly after 4:35 p.m. CT. The 500-kilometer, 117-lap race ran into prime-time, nearing the end of available light, and into green-white-checker finish, where the race ended after 120 laps. Fox continued with the broadcast, marking the first time NASCAR's #2 series had a network prime-time broadcast. Two months later, NBC had a 2 1/2-hour rain delay during the Pepsi 400 at Daytona, airing the start as the race started at 11 PM, even though it ended after 2 AM ET the morning.

Just 13 days after the LifeLock 400 (October 13), KTKA in Topeka, Kansas left ESPN on ABC's coverage of the NASCAR Bank of America 500 at 10 p.m. Central time (11 p.m. ET) to carry the local newscast and did not return for the final six laps once the race resumed after a red-flag delay that had started at the time of the newscast.

Equivalents also exist on radio, though usually in these cases it is usually due to a station being the flagship station for a certain team and being required to place priority on that team no matter the scheduling and broadcasting circumstances. For example, KSPN, the local affiliate for ESPN Radio in Los Angeles, joined the network for its coverage of the 2008 Orange Bowl (January 3), but did not air the finish of the game, in fact leaving it at halftime to join the USC conference college basketball opener at California.
On November 9, 2008 (almost 40 years to the date of the Heidi Bowl), ESPN moved the Checker O'Reilly Auto Parts 500k NASCAR Sprint Cup playoff race #9 from ABC to ESPN2 during a red flag on Lap 274 of 312 (it was extended to 313 laps because of green-white-checkered). This took place except on the West Coast to make room for America's Funniest Videos, a regularly scheduled program, and also to protect Desperate Housewives, which airs at 9 p.m., and unlike other network programming, is not permitted to be delayed by sports overrun. NASCAR's Brian France blasted ESPN for this move.
On Wednesday February 4, 2009, millions of viewers watching an FA Cup 4th Round replay between Liverpool and Everton on most of the ITV network missed the winning goal in the last two minutes of extra time as a technical error meant the feed was switched to an advertisement break at the wrong time. Viewers in southern England, Wales and Northern Ireland missed the goal entirely - the picture returning to show the celebrating Everton players. Viewers in northern England and southern Scotland returned to the live feed around five seconds before the goal was scored.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Obviously, I couldn't disagree more.

1. LGP is not a factor in the rebounding play, so you can't cite a rule discussing that to support your opinion.

I was addressing your drive play...it is fully relevant...and by extension to demonstrate that the rebounding play is a foul on the player who is invading another player's space.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. Use "you" instead of "we" because I certainly don't call a foul on B2 in your example.

Let me rephrase...we, the referees who make the correct call,....

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. Even if the play involved LGP, such as the example that I gave, you are still in error because you believe this, [referring to 4-23-3d] "It doesn't say they can do so as long as there is no contact," and this, "Who causes the contact is irrelevant, it is about who is in an illegal position when contact occurs."

You are failing to understand that 4-23-3d must be taken in the context of what is written about guarding in 4-23-1. Those are the basics of guarding and everything that is stated there applies to the later articles.

4-23-1 "... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

That's the guiding principle. (There are exceptions for airborne and fast moving players.)

All fine except it is all wrong.

A player gets a spot "on the playing court", not in the air over another player and his/her spot. A1, having his/her arms over B1 is not in that spot at all. A1 is invading B1's spot. Again, you are not in a spot just becasue you get your arms over the spot. If that were even remotely true, you could set a screen by extendeding your arms into a space before the another player arrives....but the rules clearly indicate that having the arms extended into a space doesn't give that player the right to that spot.

If A1 is able to get his feet over B1's head, then, maybe, he'll also have that spot, but not by just getting his/her arms into the space.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let me rephrase...we, the referees who make the correct call,....

Hard to say that when you don't know what the correct call is.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All fine except it is all wrong.

I say the same thing about your opinion.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A player gets a spot "on the playing court", not in the air over another player and his/her spot. A1, having his/her arms over B1 is not in that spot at all. A1 is invading B1's spot. Again, you are not in a spot just becasue you get your arms over the spot.

So whenever a player reaches out to grab a ball over an opponent's head, that opponent would be smart to reach up and smack his arms away.

That fits your description of a legal play. BTW I notice that you didn't respond to my "George Gervin" example.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If that were even remotely true, you could set a screen by extendeding your arms into a space before the another player arrives....but the rules clearly indicate that having the arms extended into a space doesn't give that player the right to that spot.

Screening is a contact situation. The rules are specifically written with the expectation that contact will occur. Therefore, it would be dangerous to allow players to extend their arms and elbows as if blocking like an offensive lineman. A screener must allow the opponent to come to him and cause the contact. That is why screening isn't a foul. If the screener reaches out and causes the contact that's illegal.

That is completely different from this situation in which the player is not attempting to cause contact. He is jumping and/or reaching over an opponent to catch the ball. He is not the one who is causing any contact. It is the player who reacts late who causes the contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So whenever a player reaches out to grab a ball over an opponent's head, that opponent would be smart to reach up and smack his arms away.

Depends...the rules say a player can raise their arms up and/or jump...verticality. If they remain in their vertical space, and are doing what the rule expressly says is permitted and contact is involved I am not calling a foul. However, that is not the same as swatting them back and forth and causing contact...they can raise them and only raise them.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That fits your description of a legal play. BTW I notice that you didn't respond to my "George Gervin" example.

Didn't see that post.....no foul if the defenders arms were being raised straight up. The shooter has to expect that the defender will strectch to fully occupy the spot legally obtained.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Screening is a contact situation. The rules are specifically written with the expectation that contact will occur. Therefore, it would be dangerous to allow players to extend their arms and elbows as if blocking like an offensive lineman. A screener must allow the opponent to come to him and cause the contact. That is why screening isn't a foul. If the screener reaches out and causes the contact that's illegal.

Exactly...and the same principle applies...arms extended outside of a player's vertical space are not protected if the other player has remained in their vertical space.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is completely different from this situation in which the player is not attempting to cause contact. He is jumping and/or reaching over an opponent to catch the ball. He is not the one who is causing any contact. It is the player who reacts late who causes the contact.

That player is invading the space of the opponent and will be guilty of the foul if there is contact that causes an advantage. If the player never jumps or attempts to go for the ball, there is likley no advantage but if the ball is above the players head, he/she has every right to jump and/or reach up for that ball. When their is contact, any player who has violated another player's vertical space has caused the contact and has fouled by being in an illegal position.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Depends...the rules say a player can raise their arms up and/or jump...verticality. If they remain in their vertical space, and are doing what the rule expressly says is permitted and contact is involved I am not calling a foul. However, that is not the same as swatting them back and forth and causing contact...they can raise them and only raise them.

So if I have the ball and hold it directly over your head while attempting to shoot or make a pass, you claim to be allowed to thrust your arms straight up and into my forearms knocking the ball free. I seriously doubt that is the proper reading of the rule.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That player is invading the space of the opponent and will be guilty of the foul if there is contact that causes an advantage. If the player never jumps or attempts to go for the ball, there is likley no advantage but if the ball is above the players head, he/she has every right to jump and/or reach up for that ball. When their is contact, any player who has violated another player's vertical space has caused the contact and has fouled by being in an illegal position.

This is not a question of applying the advantage/disadvantage philosophy. It is a textbook rules debate. The problem that we have is axiomatic. We start with different fundamental assumptions and thus each logically reach conflicting conclusions. I find no fault with your reasoning. It is your initial assumption that I believe is flawed. I've already stated my case as to why I think that.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are failing to understand that 4-23-3d must be taken in the context of what is written about guarding in 4-23-1. Those are the basics of guarding and everything that is stated there applies to the later articles.

Your guiding principle is occupying a legal position. Mine is the causing of contact.

You believe that having a legal position allows a player to cause contact. I believe that it merely allows that player to absorb contact. That difference may be minor, but it is key to how we each define "illegal contact."

Since I don't see either of us being able to change the other's mind about this fundamental point, it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others discuss this for themselves.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So if I have the ball and hold it directly over your head while attempting to shoot or make a pass, you claim to be allowed to thrust your arms straight up and into my forearms knocking the ball free. I seriously doubt that is the proper reading of the rule.


This is not a question of applying the advantage/disadvantage philosophy. It is a textbook rules debate. The problem that we have is axiomatic. We start with different fundamental assumptions and thus each logically reach conflicting conclusions. I find no fault with your reasoning. It is your initial assumption that I believe is flawed. I've already stated my case as to why I think that.


Your guiding principle is occupying a legal position. Mine is the causing of contact.

You believe that having a legal position allows a player to cause contact. I believe that it merely allows that player to absorb contact. That difference may be minor, but it is key to how we each define "illegal contact."

Since I don't see either of us being able to change the other's mind about this fundamental point, it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others discuss this for themselves.

Your claim is that they may only have them raised, but the language of the book doesn't say that at all. The language of the book clearly says a defender may "raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane". It doesn't say they may only have thier hands in a raised position. The difference is fundamental and important. It allows them the action of raising them while in LGP, not just the position.

Also see rule 10-6-1:

Extending the arms fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs is not legal.

Again, the language here grants permsion for the action of extending the arms, not just the position of having them extended and it says that it is a foul if it is "other than vertically"...which, implies that doing so vertically is legal.

The fact that it "causes contact" is not relevant. Few fouls are based on who causes the contact but on who is doing something illegal when contact occurs.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Billy, my parents were each in 9th grade, 2000 miles away from each other in 1968; yet I know what it is.

My wife was 8 and I was 17 in 1968, .

MTD, Sr.


P.S. And I do remember "The Heidi Bowl" game as it became to be called. I was really honked off when NBC switched to the movie.