2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[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."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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."

In NCAA you can take abbreviated time-outs. In this case it's standard for the requesting coach to signal it's a substitution time-out by giving the travelling mechanic.

[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."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

1) 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.

2) 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?

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) In this play, the net effect was a screen.

1) What rule gives any opponent the right to a spot under an airborne player when that opponent did not have that spot when the player went airborne?

2) Yup, I think a player should be allowed to land if there was no one in his path when he went airborne.

3) Yup. A shooter can't legally jump into an opponent. And if a defender jumps within his vertical plane, a shooter can't move under him legally either.

4) Yup, it's a judgment call imo too.

5) But was the net effect an illegal screen? That's where the judgment lies.

As I said, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, Camron.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) What rule gives any opponent the right to a spot under an airborne player when that opponent did not have that spot when the player went airborne?

2) Yup, I think a player should be allowed to land if there was no one in his path when he went airborne.

3) Yup. A shooter can't legally jump into an opponent. And if a defender jumps within his vertical plane, a shooter can't move under him legally either.

4) Yup, it's a judgment call imo too.

5) But was the net effect an illegal screen? That's where the judgment lies.

As I said, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, Camron.

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?

[APG]

This was from the Arizona vs. Duke game



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.