2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

APG

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

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

Also I should mention that his play preceded a technical foul by a player for arguing this play.

stiffler3492

Snaqwells wrote
Fair question. Howard sees an open player about to receive the ball and starts to head out to guard him. The question is, who gets the rights to the intersection of their paths?

Had the passer continued his dribble, the defender would have been charged, certainly. But he didn't, he passed, and his actions constituted a screen. Look at the results of the play, it's just like any other screen where the screener is late.

Ok, but how does the fact that Taylor is in the air change the equation? Isn't an airborne player entitled to land without obstruction?

tref

stiffler3492 wrote
What's the NCAA rule about airborne players?

stiffler3492 wrote
Ok, but how does the fact that Taylor is in the air change the equation? Isn't an airborne player entitled to land without obstruction?

Doesn't the "airborne" rule pertain to the shooter?

Other than that, isn't everyone entitled to a spot on the floor (exception is the secondary defender under the basket for NCAA-M)?

APG

tref wrote
Doesn't the "airborne" rule pertain to the shooter?

Other than that, isn't everyone entitled to a spot on the floor (exception is the secondary defender under the basket)?

Except one has to legally get in the path of an airborne player before the player is airborne...with or without the ball. The only thing that will change with regards to having the ball or not is time and distance. It's never legal to undercut an airborne player.

Raymond

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

YouTube - Block/Charge Jimmer Fredette

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

Me too. Left leg was sticking way outside of his normal stance.

JugglingReferee

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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.

tref

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Except one has to legally get in the path of an airborne player before the player is airborne...with or without the ball. The only thing that will change with regards to having the ball or not is time and distance. It's never legal to undercut an airborne player.

No doubt!

Adam

stiffler3492 wrote
Ok, but how does the fact that Taylor is in the air change the equation? Isn't an airborne player entitled to land without obstruction?

I'm not any more positive he was in the air than I am that Howard was in the air. It's pretty close, to be honest. And a screener doesn't get to launch himself into the air here just to make an otherwise illegal screen legal.

stiffler3492

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Except one has to legally get in the path of an airborne player before the player is airborne...with or without the ball. The only thing that will change with regards to having the ball or not is time and distance. It's never legal to undercut an airborne player.

That's the point I'm trying to make here. If anything, it should be a foul on Howard. Obviously, if Howard were in that spot before Taylor took off, the impetus is on Taylor.

I still have nothing.

Adam

JugglingReferee wrote
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.

Adam

stiffler3492 wrote
That's the point I'm trying to make here. If anything, it should be a foul on Howard. Obviously, if Howard were in that spot before Taylor took off, the impetus is on Taylor.

I still have nothing.

Let me ask you this:
A2, setting a screen on B1, sees B1 is going to go around the screen. Just as B1 gets close, A2 jumps airborne into the path of B1 causing a collision.

You calling B1?

JugglingReferee

Snaqwells wrote
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.

JugglingReferee

Snaqwells wrote
Let me ask you this:
A2, setting a screen on B1, sees B1 is going to go around the screen. Just as B1 gets close, A2 jumps airborne into the path of B1 causing a collision.

You calling B1?

B1's path is already established. It was A2 that changed his path to interfere with B1, so it's A2's foul. A2 becoming airborne doesn't release himself of responsibility of avoiding B1's path.

Raymond

Snaqwells wrote
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.

stiffler3492

Snaqwells wrote
Let me ask you this:
A2, setting a screen on B1, sees B1 is going to go around the screen. Just as B1 gets close, A2 jumps airborne into the path of B1 causing a collision.

You calling B1?

Obviously not but I think the situation is completely different. Taylor made a basketball play. He jumped before he passed, and then he didn't change his path before Howard moved into it.

Adam

stiffler3492 wrote
Obviously not but I think the situation is completely different. Taylor made a basketball play. He jumped before he passed, and then he didn't change his path before Howard moved into it.

We see it differently, then.

1. I'ts hard to tell if his foot is off the ground. It's not a jump so much as a step in his trot.

2. Either way, it was a screen. He was moving when the contact was made, and he was not moving in a legal way for a screen.

stiffler3492

Snaqwells wrote
We see it differently, then.

1. I'ts hard to tell if his foot is off the ground. It's not a jump so much as a step in his trot.

2. Either way, it was a screen. He was moving when the contact was made, and he was not moving in a legal way for a screen.

Agree to disagree.

Raymond

stiffler3492 wrote
Obviously not but I think the situation is completely different. Taylor made a basketball play. He jumped before he passed, and then he didn't change his path before Howard moved into it.

Snaqwells wrote
We see it differently, then.

1. I'ts hard to tell if his foot is off the ground. It's not a jump so much as a step in his trot.

2. Either way, it was a screen. He was moving when the contact was made, and he was not moving in a legal way for a screen.

The more I watch the replay the more I'm convinced it's an illegal screen. From the initial angle you can see Howard taking a path to guard A2 and Carlton, sorry I mean Taylor, looks at Howard and changes not only his path of travel but also turns in midair so that his butt hits Howard. Then when you watch the replay from the backcourt camera you see that Howard gets T-boned by Taylor. Howard gets knocked over sideways because he was at the spot first. Similar to an accident at an intersection.

Camron Rust

Snaqwells wrote
Whether you consider it a screen isn't relevant. That's what it was. Even if it wasn't his intent, the result was an illegally screened defender.

Snaqwells wrote
What does it matter "why" he changed is path? By doing so, he illegally impeded the path of his opponent. His intent is irrelevant on this play.

Exactly. Whether he intended to or not, the guard cut off the path of a defender without giving time/distance....illegal screen....every time.

Do we pass on a defensive foul where the defender swats the shooter's arm because the defender intended to hit the ball instead?

tref

BadNewsRef wrote
The more I watch the replay the more I'm convinced it's an illegal screen. From the intitial angle you can see Howard taking a path to guard A2 and Carlton, sorry I mean Taylor, looks at Howard and changes not only his path of travel but also turns in midair so that his butt hits Howard. Then when you watch the replay from the backcourt camera you see that Howard gets T-boned by Taylor. Similar to an accident at an intersection.

Yeah it looks like a typical Freedom of Movement/RSBQ play. We just rarely see the passer commit this foul.

« Previous Page Next Page »