Which goes back to my and Snaq's question. So now a screener can go airborne into the path of a guard and thus becomes absolved for any responsibility for the contact that ensues?

This was from the Arizona vs. Duke game

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fUzQhv6rHnc?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

Foul on the defender for his initial forward movement into the offensive player? Just a foul on the follow through? Or do you have no foul? Also brought this play up since we had discussion earlier about the amount of contact we allow on dunk plays.

I do not see how you call a foul on this play at all. It looked like he got the ball and almost all the contact was with the ball. Play on IMO.

Peace

Some would argue that the foul is on the follow through when the offensive player was hit in the face (not necessarily making this argument).

Seemed in the arena that VCU benefited from a slow 5-second count in OT to score the winning basket against FSU. Opposite of TX/AZ game. Thoughts?

The contact was mostly with the ball and maybe at the end there was contact with the face. But that was a result of the overall block (which was legal). I think that would be a lame foul to call. Just like a player that knocks the ball away on a dribbler and there is some contact after the ball is loose and no one is put at a disadvantage with some contact that takes place.

Peace

What if they are BOTH airborne such that no one was in their paths when they jumped and such that their paths are crossing? Which ONE has the right to land and how are you going to decide?

I pretty much agree with your view on the play. I was surprised the official put air in the whistle on this one and I think it was exactly for the contact to the face. Oh well.

Those guys are obviously not perfect. :)

Peace

Gasp! Say it ain't so! ;)

Yes, Sir
 

It is quite possible that your observation may indeed come to pass.

I eluded to this in the chat room by saying that the count was really "5.5".

My thoughts: I'd bet a wobbly pop that it was longer than 5.

I have a foul for the blow to the head.

"Seemed" long but I didn't time it.

For you Mark.......
 

A local news station was reviewing this week's NCAAs. They talked about BYU and "the Jimmer" and the announcer called his last game, "A night to Fredette" :p

NCAA-M DII final is on CBS right now. BYU-Hawaii vs. Bellarmine.

+1

Incidental contact, ok, but this follow-through was a little heavy.

Big East: no call. :)

Maybe? ya think? :D

I saw more contact with the ball then the face.

Peace

I wonder if it would have been appropriate to say "In Your Face" on that one:confused:
J/K

Close block charge play from the UK v. OSU game

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ek7Je9JwHRE?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

Good job by the lead holding the preliminary signal.

I just want to comment on the plays put in thus far so my .02 cents can be on the record! ha

1st play- I have illegal screen. Just because you are pitching the ball off doesn't absolve you from being a screener. He "picks" the defensive player off and thwarts his freedom of movement.

2nd play- I have block. An extended leg is beyond his plane and therefore he was not in "position" to take the charge.

3rd play- I have a legal block. The only way I would have had a foul would have been if the follow thru was wayyyyy too much to ignore with the shot to the head after the block.. The "too much" is different to everyone.

4th play- Absolutely a block! Player slides over late.

Another close banger from the UK/OSU game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3miUAw_x9XE?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

What would be more beneficial is to explain your call based on the posted NCAA rule elsewhere in this thread.

Block and block on the last two.

+1 on the Duke "block". You wouldn't allow that on a jump shot, so why allow it on a dunk attempt? Foul any day of the week for me.

Slot (O'Connell) got the call right but definitely not a good mechanic immediately going to his hips. He's gotta know the Lead (Ayers) is going to have a whistle on this play also.

50/50. Some angles it looks like he was there before A1 elevated and others (above the backboard) looks like he was there late.

When in doubt...block or charge?

The reason I didn't explain myself on the illegal screen play is bc there should have to be no explanation. That is an easy one imo. All screening principles are the same at all levels if I'm not mistaken... A player can be a screener whether he has the ball or not. If I am holding the ball and a player is gonna come around me like a normal screen and I'm going to pitch it off to him. I have to give a moving opponent time and distance I.e., the opportunity to stop and/or change his direction and if I pitch the ball and move into him, to the side to clip him, or just stick my butt out to thwart the moving defender then I have committed an illegal act. This seemed like an easy off. Foul call imo. The fact that it is being argued baffles me. Its not incidental contact when a player has virtually turned this play into a pitch and pick in which he does it obviously illegally.

I have a block on both of them. Also in the second clip, the center did a great job of holding his preliminary (you can see he had a foul call if you view the camera from the endline). Two good examples of at least one official withholding his preliminary. No blarges here (and no JAR going on a one man crusades...we're all winners ;)).

Do you want to get belted?

No I don't...not even for $36 I wouldn't. ;)

Where is it written that any preliminary signal necessitates any call?


You brought it up.

Instead of going on your one-man, never-going-to-win-it crusade, let's get your opinion on the plays posted in here. :D

Both blocks looked like good calls to me. Where I work, the shot in the head is a foul.

What about the illegal screen? This play seems to be *50/50 or maybe *65/35 illegal screen to no call.


*Very scientifically determined.

Looks like the right call to me. Also looks like it would have been easy to miss live.

Was asked to get this clip and get the forum's response to the call in the chat room yesterday.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ksxXVWWAX1c?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

Agree/disagree?

It's All Academic ...
 

Easy call: Travel.

I think he traveled twice, the second of which was simultaneous with committing a player control foul.

Disagree. I see B1 establishing LGP and beating A1 to the spot during the turn, and A1's shoulder crashing into the B1's body. PC Foul.

Disregard if he traveled or not...what is your call on the block/charge call.

Bait And Switch ...
 

That will cost you extra.

I'd have a charge on the plays presented in posts 121, 123 and 139.

I thought the defender established & maintained LGP & the offense went to & through, but the calling official obviously, really liked his call :D

LOL!!!

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dr...ated-again.jpg

This play is being referenced in another thread.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eQ2gM7t5wus?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

Run of the mill shooting foul or upgrade to an intentional?

Wow, after seeing the play, it's an easy int in my games. Of course, I recognize that Rut's area probably has a different effing standard for this play.

But he doesn't even pretend to try to get the ball when he grabs the waist.

Vernon Macklin's And 1:

Definitely travelled first. And I don't think the defender did any illegal to earn a blocking call though I do think he flopped, but his flop didn't affect the shooter.

While I think the defender in question embellished the contact some, I believe there's definitely enough contact that you have to put air in the whistle.

Not as obvious an intentional foul as I was expecting based on all the chatter here. Have no problem if they had come together and gone with IF but seeing the play at normal speed the first time I thought the player initially made a play on the ball. Further scrutiny leads to going IF but I can understand how the officials didn't go with an IF at the moment.

I have no idea who's idea it was to lump all discussions about the games into one thread but it is a horrible idea. It is nearly impossible to tell which comments go with which play at this point.

And that is the way, if we're going to lump all of these into one discussion, to reference the plays.

121...defender slid under late, still moving sideways after the shooter was airborne and the contact was largely on the leading shoulder...block.

123...defender also late, block....the defender was not in the path at the moment the shooter left the floor...his torso continued to move laterally another 1-2 feet after the shooter jumped and before contact.

139...travel, 2 times....but the contact looked like a charge....except for the constant hand on shooter throughout the play.

148...Intentional foul....no attempt at the ball whatsoever.

I respect that, but I have yet to see a legitimate play on the ball. What I do see clearly is an airborne player being grabbed as he's trying to bang one home.

In regards to your "at the moment" comment, I guess time & score does factor in at what we do...

While they may be case in some plays that's not what I meant this time. I meant if my first look at the play I felt like the defender may a legit play on the ball I can see how at that moment the officials on the court thought the same.

I agree that after reviewing the play we have an IF.

Actually I think the first action was to slap at the ball. The other arm was around him, but the foul was on the shooting arm. And no this is not an area thing, this is a judgment thing. I probably call more Intentional Fouls than many people here or in my area, and I call the first action, not the second action or action that did not affect the play. If we call what a player does second a lot, then you will have intentional fouls in almost every end of game situation.

I would rather error on the side of not calling an intentional in this case where it is not "obvious" to everyone then call one that we have to debate.

Peace

This is what I saw initially also. That's why in the other thread I was surprised not to see an OBVIOUS intentional foul the first time I watched the play after reading about it.

Not even sure if there was any contact on the arm. The grab around the waist is what stopped the shot.

The official in question had a much better angle on the entire play than we did. So what stopped the shot or not is based on one angle and the angle the official did not have.

Peace

Really?! I'll agree that he had a "different" angle, but he hardly had a "better" angle! He was chasing the play down & actually was straightlined when the defender wrapped him with the right arm.

I don't know about you, but I make more CC when I receive the play as opposed to chasing them down.

My point about this particular play is that, time & score obviously matter because the same play at the end of the game or after a hard foul would result in a discussion on double whistles, at the very least.

IMO, the C had the best look, but the L gave him the look like, "I got it, I got it!"

I think lead had a decent look but the C had the best look at the play, and they both didn't have an intentional even after getting together.

The right arm went for the ball. ;)

Well that was the angle he had and unlike you or me he did not have multiple replays to break down the play. He and his partners had one shot.

Maybe, but that is not how many calls are made in my experience. And certainly not on a quick steal and going to the other end of the court. Sorry, I would not use that as an excuse to get a play right or not in this situation.

OK, but that does not mean everyone agrees with that. You can state what you would have done all day long, it was not your call or my call. Easy to sit on my couch and tell others what you would have done or who had the best angle. :)

Peace

Grab the travel first so that you don't end up calling what should have been a PC foul, a block by mistake.

They sure didn't.

Peace

APG's clip in post 148... INT but I can see if they stick with a regular foul in the NCAA.

He jumped. When he got grabbed around the waist, he stopped going up. That looks the same from every angle.

If it was so obvious, why was it not called? Keep in mind the angles we have are different than the officials on the floor too.

Peace

Ya got me. Why were the two obvious travels on the other play not called?

Perhaps things are different in their area.

Seeing the entire play, even if the initial swipe was at the ball, I'm still int.

At best, you have one player committing multiple fouls against an airborne shooter, the second of which is intentional. I'm penalizing the more severe foul here.

Hmmm never saw them get together... the C held up for some reason, maybe the L was the R?

Obviously...

Not saying what "I" would do. I posed 2 questions:
Are we thinking INT?
Should time & score matter?
for discussion & AS USUAL, when you dont agree you change words around &/or focus on terminology to get your point across.

Because it was too early in the game to make that the standard for INTs... time & score obviously do matter in managing a game properly.

Perhaps they do not think it was an intentional foul. I am not seeing a 100% agreement here for God’s sake. I know this is hard for some to grasp, but not everyone has the same judgment. And you said that a very strong guy was prevented from jumping. In my experience if that contact prevented him from jumping, both players would have been on the floor. That was not a little guard going to the basket that might have been the strongest guy on the floor that night.

And travels are missed in every game that is ever played. So that is a silly question if you ask me.

Peace

That is my fault...I cut out that portion in the clip. They did in fact come together before they reported the foul.

That was more obvious than the call they came up with.


Time and score does not matter with me. Just like the kind of path a player has does not matter with me either. ;)

How did I change the words around? I stated very clearly why I felt it was not an intentional foul, you are the only one that has stuck to a standard that is not stated in any rules at the NCAA or NF level with your "clear path" standard. It was not obvious to me that this was anything other than many other fouls we would call in a game.

It is? Where does it say that in the rulebook? I have seen intentional fouls called by many officials in the first few minutes of the game on plays like this where a player as a easy layup or dunk. The action is what makes it an intentional foul, not the time in the game if you are using the rules about this kind of foul.

Peace

Which is why the NBA ruleset is superior, clear path = no judgment.

If we added gather to our books, we would have less do overs for obvious shooting fouls too,

It doesnt...

Anywho, I'm done with this one. How about them Jayhawks??

OK, but it even appears there is judgment based on the rules quoted. But if you believe so OK. Oh and if you think there still would not be judgment, then you have a lot to learn about officiating. There is always judgment when decisions are being made even when rules are much more precise and specific.

There are do overs on shooting fouls (or you are seeing them a lot)? OK, I guess.

Peace

While it's ovious to me, it obviously wasn't to the guys on the floor; that means something. I don't think the time and score matter, although previous action (hard fouls) might. Personally, I have this as an intentional at any point in the game. I'll live with the fact that it probably means I won't work in Peoria.

If you change the fact that he was going to the basket and no one but those two were around, I do not see how this would be an intentional foul. Which is why I do not use standards like "clear path" to make these calls.

Peace

+1

From the VCU vs. Kansas game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gly0KmkRFG8?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

Agree/disagree? Some discussion about this play in the chat room when it happened live...was it actually a hold or not and if we had to put air in the whistle on this one.

From the VCU vs. Kansas game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hAJPuZKv__U?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

Was this player in the act of shooting? Should continuous motion have applied here? This was a play that preceded the technical on the VCU head coach Shaka Smart. IMO, I thought he was in the act of shooting.

Play from post 180: I don't see a hold, but the L might have had a better look at the right hand.

More important: you guys are blowing whistles in the chat room? :eek:

Hold in the post (VCU/KU)
 

Not only was it a foul, Taylor is lucky he didnt' get rung up afterwards.

Play in post 181:

Hard to tell: as you know, we can call it a shooting foul if we judge that the foul prevented the release of the shot. I don't think the contact was anywhere near the ball, so I can understand not calling it a shooting foul, absent a release of the shot.

Block/charge play from the VCU vs. Kansas game

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I2VxRiCFplU?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Act of Shooting? (VCU/KU)
 

I didn't see that much of the game. Appears to be act of shooting but there was also #21 set up for a wide open 3-pointer. Had that post player kicked the ball out on previous plays?

And another KU player running his mouth. KU players didn't acquit themselves very well this weekend in San Antonio behavior wise.

Looks like a hold to me. It does not look like he gets to the ball without doing that. Good call in my opinion.

Peace

Act of shooting IMO. Not sure how it was not called that way in the first place.

Peace

Block/Charge (VCU/KU)
 

That's a flop.

No, it wasn't just a flop, imho. The defender stuck his left knee into the the offensive player's legs and caused him to stumble. That takes it from just being a flop to being a block. I thought this was a great call.

Must not have been obvious. :D

Injury in Butler Regional Semi Final
 

Can't find this play anywhere on this thread. Remember when the Butler kid hurt his knee on a rebound in the 2nd half and fell to the ground in pain. It looked like to me he had the ball when he landed on the ground. Does anyone think that should have been called a travel. He didn't ask for a T.O. .........thoughts??????

180...Hold...the defender "off" arm was wrapped around the opponent's waist giving him leverage to get to the ball.

Block.... steeping forward and sticking the knee out.

Yup. Getting knocked out looks good on 'em. And I gotta say Shaka coached rings around their resident genius too imo.

Yeah, he'll be able to write his own paycheck for next year, then he'll get fired after 4 years at whatever BCS conference school picks him up (Tennessee is just one possibility, I think) due to a 63-59 record (30-42 in conference).

It should have been intentional instead. There was an "obvious advantage" that can be interpreted. Two can play at that game.

Peace

Depends on the extent to which he's willing to emulate the "successful" coaches. Might take him a while to catch on to the rules of the game.

I don't know about that...if the school/alumni/boosters will get out of his way and let him recruit the kind of players he wants for his program (ala Coach K), he will be successful at any level. If and when they stick their noses in and start whining about "not getting the top quality players" then he will have to turn into a Calipari/Self/Pitino/etc...

Sorry, I'm still a bit jaded after the last two Iowa coaches.