2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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?

You have a conflict between two rules and have to decide which one to apply....which one is relevant to the situation.

If the guard had kept the ball, probably a foul on Howard. But, in passing it away, he became a screener and is subject to the screening rules. (Yes, I know the ball handler can also be a screener).

If being airborne absolved an offensive player of giving time/distance in setting a screen, ever screener would jump into the path of the defender.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You have a conflict between two rules and have to decide which one to apply....which one is relevant to the situation.

If the guard had kept the ball, definitely a foul on Howard. But, in passing it away, he became a screener and is subject to the screening rules. (Yes, I know the ball handler can also be a screener).

If being airborne absolved an offensive player of giving time/distance in setting a screen, ever screener would jump into the path of the defender.

I see A1 as being airborne as he released the ball. To me, he's allowed to land safely because his path was clear when he left the floor. Because his status changed from having PC to not having PC, while airborne, he is in fact absolved of time and distance until he lands.

[CLH]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the guard had kept the ball, probably a foul on Howard. But, in passing it away, he became a screener and is subject to the screening rules.

Where exactly can we find this in the rule/case books?

Are we to assume everytime a ball is passed, the passer is now automatically a screener? Where are you getting this?

[dbking]

RULE 4-35
Art. 5.

To establish legal guarding position on a player without the ball:

a. Time and distance shall be required to attain an initial legal position;

b. The guard shall give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact;

Approved Ruling 109

c. The distance given by the opponent of the player without the ball need not be more than two strides; and

d. When the opponent is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court.

This rule clearly defines that the foul is on Howard, not Taylor.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by dbking

RULE 4-35
Art. 5.

To establish legal guarding position on a player without the ball:

a. Time and distance shall be required to attain an initial legal position;

b. The guard shall give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact;

Approved Ruling 109

c. The distance given by the opponent of the player without the ball need not be more than two strides; and

d. When the opponent is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court.

This rule clearly defines that the foul is on Howard, not Taylor.

Can I assume that this is NCAA text?

The text seems to support my position.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by dbking

RULE 4-35
Art. 5.

To establish legal guarding position on a player without the ball:

a. Time and distance shall be required to attain an initial legal position;

b. The guard shall give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact;

Approved Ruling 109

c. The distance given by the opponent of the player without the ball need not be more than two strides; and

d. When the opponent is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court.

This rule clearly defines that the foul is on Howard, not Taylor.

The problem is, he's not guarding Taylor. He's heading out to guard the player who's about to receive the pass. Taylor becomes a screener, and is subject to screening rules (as Camron noted).

Are you saying you would allow a screener to jump into the path of a defender and nail the defender for a foul? A screener doesn't get to go airborn into the path of a defender just to make an otherwise illegal screen legal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The problem is, he's not guarding Taylor. He's heading out to guard the player who's about to receive the pass. Taylor becomes a screener, and is subject to screening rules (as Camron noted).

Are you saying you would allow a screener to jump into the path of a defender and nail the defender for a foul? A screener doesn't get to go airborn into the path of a defender just to make an otherwise illegal screen legal.

Exactly, going by this anytime you want to set a screen on a moving defender you just launch yourself in the air into his path and you are absolved of all cupability.

[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.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Gotcha. Thanks for that. So then perhaps they were thinking that with an elbow or something, the foul would go beyond a T?

Right. If I heard the public address announcer correctly, the call was for unnecessary contact during a stoppage. (10.5.1(d).) I assume they want to the monitor to see whether it was flagrant (10.5.1(e)), which has a different penalty administration.

[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."