Clark Kellogg

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Kellogg or the other guy was initially talking about the player being in the imaginary area under the hoop.

Yes, THAT'S the one I mean. Does the NCAA even recognize that "imaginary area," the dreaded restricted area?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Yes, THAT'S the one I mean. Does the NCAA even recognize that "imaginary area," the dreaded restricted area?

As of this year, but it was too soon to have the circle painted.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

And for what college did Clark Kellog play and graduate from:

The Ohio State University



MTD, Sr.

[mutantducky]

now don't go dissing their study of cheese major. just because a few (dozen) football players graduate without being able to read doesn't mean Ohio St. or its fabulous sewing classes should be looked down upon.

[grunewar]

While not a fan of his, personally, I didn't mind Kellogg last night.

Just like an official, he gets one wrong ever now and again too. Shrug.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Just like an official, he gets one wrong ever now and again too.

Getting one wrong because he saw something different than the rest of us is excusable. Expressing misinformation, especially in his role, is not.

Had Kellogg said, "I believe Scheyer tried to get legal guarding position after the shooter had left the floor," then fine. I don't agree with that, but at least there's a fact (rule) behind the opinion. When someone passes on a rationale with no rules basis ("jumping into the path"), it only adds to the rule myths we have to battle.

[APG]

How else is a defender suppose to defend at dribbler if he doesn't get "in the path?" The statement by itself makes no sense at all. Every charge drawn by the defender on the dribbler means he was "in the path," and it is perfectly legal to jump into the path and gain a legal guarding position at the high school/college level as long as he does so before the player is airborne. I think it was just a case of an announcer trying to use some officiating vernacular but incorrectly. Now if he said he jumped in the path after the player was airborne, then he would have some backing from the book.

On the play in question, I do believe it was a blocking foul as the defender slide to his right and obtained his guarding position after the ball handler was airborne.

[Judtech]

I thought it was a great charge call. It appeared that Sheyer moved to his right b/c when Haywood (?) was driving to the basket he jumped to his left. It was a smart play by the Butler player. He assumed that Sheyer was going to go one step further so veered left to avoid where he THOUGHT Sheyer would be. Sheyer got to where the contact occured and took a nice charge. Had the Butler player gone straight ahead, then a block would have been the call. IMO, to smart basketball players made to smart basketball plays, but in this case the Duke player won.
On another note. I thought the block call on Zoubek on the baseline was a good call. VERY similar to the play against Baylor that was callled a charge against Baylor. Felt that should have been a block, but for the sake of my bracket I am glad it wasnt called that way.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I thought it was a great charge call. It appeared that Sheyer moved to his right b/c when Haywood (?) was driving to the basket he jumped to his left. It was a smart play by the Butler player. He assumed that Sheyer was going to go one step further so veered left to avoid where he THOUGHT Sheyer would be. Sheyer got to where the contact occured and took a nice charge. Had the Butler player gone straight ahead, then a block would have been the call. IMO, to smart basketball players made to smart basketball plays, but in this case the Duke player won.
On another note. I thought the block call on Zoubek on the baseline was a good call. VERY similar to the play against Baylor that was callled a charge against Baylor. Felt that should have been a block, but for the sake of my bracket I am glad it wasnt called that way.

Again, you must be talking about a different play than the one I mentioned above. Cause that one, without a doubt, was a block called incorrectly as a charge.