2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

After taking another look at it, not only does he launch himself into the defender, he turned & sealed the guy as if it were a post entry play.

I still like this call!

[stiffler3492]

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.

Does it matter who he's guarding? The rulebook says "the guard", not "the guard who is guarding someone other than A1."

Have there been any cases, Fed or NCAA, that address the situation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Yabut....

In this stuation you have a defender jumping into the path of an airborne player after that player became airborne. There was no one in the player's path imo when he did leave his feet.

In the grand scheme of things though, it's one "iffy" call that had no bearing at all on the game.

[mbyron]

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.

I'm with Snaqs and Camron on this one. The guarding rules that apply to the defense are irrelevant. Taylor's a screener who moves into the path of the defender without meeting the screening requirements. Illegal.

[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.

[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.

[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!