2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[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.

[Adam]

Well stated, Camron. +1

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't believe this is correct. He didn't fly into the other player's path; he simply continued on his path that he can't change since he's airborne. That B1 hit A1 is not A1's responsibility. It's a foul by B if A1 is placed at a disadvantage. Block and a no-call are the only possibilities. The disadvantage is a judgment call. The TCF is a wrong call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I don't believe this is correct. He didn't fly into the other player's path; he simply continued on his path that he can't change since he's airborne. That B1 hit A1 is not A1's responsibility. It's a foul by B if A1 is placed at a disadvantage. Block and a no-call are the only possibilities. The disadvantage is a judgment call. The TCF is a wrong call.

He certianly did fly into B1's path, and he didn't become airborn until B1 began his movement towards the 3 pt line. Are you really saying that an airborne screener always has the right of way?

I'm still not convinced he was airborn before contact, but it really doesn't matter, IMO, for this discussion.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Does the same logic/ruling apply to an airborne shooter?

We'll have to agree to disagree. Imo if a player goes airborne without anyone in their path at that time, they have to be allowed to land. Howard went airborne to make a pass with no one in front of him. He made the pass. I can't see calling a foul on Howard for then landing on an opponent who ran under him.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Does the same logic/ruling apply to an airborne shooter?

We'll have to agree to disagree. Imo if a player goes airborne without anyone in their path at that time, they have to be allowed to land. Howard went airborne to make a pass with no one in front of him. He made the pass. I can't see calling a foul on Howard for then landing on an opponent who ran under him.

Jurassic:
You imply passiveness on Howard's just 'landing' on an opponent. I get a sense that he made a mid-course maneuver to actively (and illegally) perform screening action that swayed the decision from no call to illegal screen. I think we can divine intent to screen from his blatant redirection after he released the ball. Just seems like the right call at the time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Jurassic:
You imply passiveness on Howard's just 'landing' on an opponent. I get a sense that he made a mid-course maneuver to actively (and illegally) perform screening action that swayed the decision from no call to illegal screen. I think we can divine intent to screen from his blatant redirection after he released the ball. Just seems like the right call at the time.

Mid-course maneuver? Blatant re-direction? Are you serious?

Maybe I gotta learn to read minds or predict the future. When I looked at the play, I saw:
1) a player jump into the air with the ball
2) that airborne player pass the ball
3) that airborne player then land on an opponent that moved into the path of his jump

Those are facts. What I don't know ....or should try to guess either imo..... is the intent of either the passer or defender. I'll leave that to others that are way smarter than me.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Jurassic:
You imply passiveness on Howard's just 'landing' on an opponent. I get a sense that he made a mid-course maneuver to actively (and illegally) perform screening action that swayed the decision from no call to illegal screen. I think we can divine intent to screen from his blatant redirection after he released the ball. Just seems like the right call at the time.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. It is obvious that the Wisc player made an adjustment in the air for the sole purpose of impeding the progress of the Butler player. Had he not done this, it would have not been a foul.
If you watch the clip again you can see him turn in mid air eyeing up Howard. This is not exactly a common occurence but I have personal knowledge of people who do/did this. Like I said 9 times out of 10 this gets missed.

[grunewar]

1:13 left in the UNC/MQ Game, UNC up by 21 and with the ball coming up the court. TWEEEET! Ref elects to stop the game and bring the subs at the table in.

No complaints, no issues, no reason other than - the ref took it upon himself to get the subs in and get the players on the court for a few secs in the NCAAs.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by grunewar

1:13 left in the UNC/MQ Game, UNC up by 21 and with the ball coming up the court. TWEEEET! Ref elects to stop the game and bring the subs at the table in.

No complaints, no issues, no reason other than - the ref took it upon himself to get the subs in and get the players on the court for a few secs in the NCAAs.

Roy called a TO just for Substitute purposes

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Roy called a TO just for Substitute purposes

Got it. Thanks.

But, they didn't actually take the TO right? Game just continued.

One of our Rec Leagues used to have a "Substitution TO."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Does the same logic/ruling apply to an airborne shooter?

We'll have to agree to disagree. Imo if a player goes airborne without anyone in their path at that time, they have to be allowed to land. Howard went airborne to make a pass with no one in front of him. He made the pass. I can't see calling a foul on Howard for then landing on an opponent who ran under him.

The foul isn't for running into a player that ran under him but for jumping into the path of a moving opponent who didn't have the ball without giving them time/distance to stop.

Being airborne doesn't magically give you the right to land if that spot is also in the path of another player who has the right to that spot.

What if, in the process of defending a shot, the defender was airborne while the shooter is still on the floor? What if the shooter then moves into the airborne defender's path in the process of taking the shot? Offensive foul for moving into the spot of an airborne player since the airborne player has a right to land?

If you are suggesting that an airborne player must always be allowed to land, then no defender who gets pumped faked into the air can ever commit foul when the shooter ducks under them.

As I said before, we have two conflicting rules.... guarding rules vs. screening rules ....with opposing requirements. Each rule requires that the guard/screener allow the other player certain rights and those rights conflict. We have to decide if the defender was guarding or the offensive player was screening.

In this play, the net effect was a screen.

[grunewar]

Friday's early games - first half (x2) - let the beatings commence. Wow!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Friday's early games - first half (x2) - let the beatings commence. Wow!

Yeah-huh. Thrash-o-matic.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Yeah-huh. Thrash-o-matic.

"We wuz doing real good until the big boys got outa school."