2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Another play from the BYU v. Florida game...block/charge play



I'd be banging the hips on this one for a block.

Agreed. Not even close to a foul by A1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Agreed. Not even close to a foul by A1.

It's close, the contact is on the defender's left shoulder/chest. So, while B1's leg is a little wide, I don't see it as responsible for the contact. Had Jimmer tripped over the outstretched leg, it would be different, IMO.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's close, the contact is on the defender's left shoulder/chest. So, while B1's leg is a little wide, I don't see it as responsible for the contact. Had Jimmer tripped over the outstretched leg, it would be different, IMO.

That's a fair and accurate description.

I should have said, "it's not close to me." I've got a block every day and twice on Sunday if this happened 8 times in one week.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's close, the contact is on the defender's left shoulder/chest. So, while B1's leg is a little wide, I don't see it as responsible for the contact. Had Jimmer tripped over the outstretched leg, it would be different, IMO.

I'm seeing contact to the leg. I'm wondering if the primary defender blocked some of the view of the Lead?

I know now after looking at this video that if I'm lead on this particular type of play I'm gonna take a step or 2 to the right so I see around the primary defender.

[jalons]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's close, the contact is on the defender's left shoulder/chest. So, while B1's leg is a little wide, I don't see it as responsible for the contact. Had Jimmer tripped over the outstretched leg, it would be different, IMO.

During the game they showed a replay from a camera located under the basket. The contact was on the extended leg of the defender. This would definitely be one the lead would like have back. As someone mentioned before, it wasn't even close.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jalons

During the game they showed a replay from a camera located under the basket. The contact was on the extended leg of the defender. This would definitely be one the lead would like have back. As someone mentioned before, it wasn't even close.

I saw that replay angle (it's included in the clip), and frankly it led me closer to my opinion here than the camera from half court did. That said, after watching it a couple of more times, I agree the contact was on the leg. The defender seems to keep moving left at this point, creating contact in the torso.

I disgree, however, that "it wasn't even close."

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by jalons

During the game they showed a replay from a camera located under the basket. The contact was on the extended leg of the defender. This would definitely be one the lead would like have back. As someone mentioned before, it wasn't even close.

The two things I found interesting about the call were:
1) The lead was pretty wide in making that call and it looked like he was looking through bodies
2) The C had the best look at the play IMO and he did not have a whistle. Of course, the L may have been quicker which didn't give the C opportunity

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Judtech

The two things I found interesting about the call were:
1) The lead was pretty wide in making that call and it looked like he was looking through bodies
2) The C had the best look at the play IMO and he did not have a whistle. Of course, the L may have been quicker which didn't give the C opportunity

1) You are wise beyond your years because some other esteemed member mentioned this earlier.

2) That is the proper mechanic for NCAA-M. That deep in the paint the Lead has first crack on a collision with a secondary defender.

[APG]

I can only hope tonight's game produce this much conversation haha

[Camron Rust]

The big question is whether A is subject to screening rules or B is subject to guarding rules. Even if you consider that Howard is subject to guarding rules, and I believe he is, the offensive player is ALSO subject to screening rules.

In this case, we have to look at what each player was trying to do and decide which player was prevented from performing their respective offensive/defensive activities.

Howard was attempting to guard a certain player. The offensive player cut his path off and prevented him from doing so without giving Howard time/distance to get around.

Howard also ran into the path of an offensive player who was airborne....but does that airborne player get to become airborne and fly into another player's path without giving that player time/distance....no....they have to get in the other player's path with time/distance.

We left to split hairs and make a decision based on who was trying to do what and who was disadvantaged by the contact. I think the offensive player, in this case, was actually trying to cut off Howard and was not disadvantaged at all. The contact served as a screen...and it was not a legal screen.