Clark Kellogg
 

In a field where announcers often get rules wrong, I've always found Clark Kellogg refreshingly correct with his analysis. He's one of the few that I've heard use correct phrases, such as "legal guarding position" and "ON the back." (He won me over when he correctly pointed out that "over the back" is not a foul.)

That said, I cringed a bit after Duke's Scheyer drew a charge. I believe the official had it right, as LGP was clear before contact. Kellogg disagreed, saying that Scheyer went "into the path" of the dribbler. Kellogg used this "into the path" phrase later that night, too.

Before I go off and opine how such myths make our jobs tougher, I should appeal to the veterans of this forum. Is there anything in the NCAA rules that says it's a blocking foul if you go "into the path" of a dribbler? (Aside, of course, from when a shooter goes airborne, at which point LGP cannot be established.)

Personally, I thought there was a charge that was a horrible call. I don't know if it's the same one you're talking about as the player clearly wasn't a dribbler when it happened.

The shooter was already airborne and the Duke defender subsequently slid sideways to draw contact in the torso. I thought that was a no-brainer block that, for whatever reason, got missed.

I agree, for the same reason. Scheyer slid to his right AFTER the shooter became airborne. But, it was bang bang.

And it was called by the L who was in the middle of a rotation at the time...that's probably why it was mis-called (imo).

Definitely why it was missed. Thats very hard to see normally, let alone during a rotation. The crew had a great game. That being said, I'm sure Cahill is going to want that call back if he sees it on film.

I'm assuming the L hustling towards the play since it was on the "near" block.

There was a charge called against Butler in the second half that Kellogg didn't like because the Duke player (don't remember who) "jumped into the path". It seems to me that Kellogg believes LGP can't be obtained by hopping into a guarding position. Bainsey, I believe this is the same call you're talking about.

In this case, it was an accurate statement, as the Duke player jumped into the path of someone who was already airborne.

Are we talking about the same play though? The one I saw had a Duke player coming in under the basket, moving to his left. I didn't think the Butler player was already airborne in this play. If he was, then agreed, it was a bad call.

No...two diff plays. The "erroneous" call involved Scheyer as the defender who slid to his right.

Welpe is right. If the shooter was indeed airborne, it was a bad call, but I was certain that he wasn't. And we may not be all talking about the same play. It's hard to determine that without posting the video.

Either way, isn't the phrase "into the path" probably creating a rule myth? A defender can indeed move into the path of a dribbler, provided LGP is obtained and maintained throughout (and the shooter isn't airborne, of course)?

I think one of the plays being talked about was Howard (that is the guard's name right?) driving from the right side. Kellogg or the other guy was initially talking about the player being in the imaginary area under the hoop. If I'm not mistaken, Eades made that call. The basket went in and if it would have counted with a free throw that could have been huge. I guess every call like this could have been huge.

Eades also called a foul by Scheyer in the first half on the floor. The (quick) replay showed the Butler guard clearly beginning the shooting motion.

There was one by that big goof, Zoubeck, that they called a charge that I thought was a definite block. That might be the one you're thinking of; it came from the left side. On the replay, it looked like he definitely slid sideways. It would have been his fifth foul too.

Agree. Moved his upper body into the shooter.

Yes, that one.

And I was also disappointed by the one you mention in the second paragraph. This "on the floor" crap won't end until the officials at the top of the game do better at getting these right.

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.

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

The Ohio State University

:D

MTD, Sr.

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.

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.

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.

How else is a defender suppose to defend at dribbler if he doesn't get "in the path?" :confused: 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.

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.:D

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.