2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

I do not see how you call a foul on this play at all. It looked like he got the ball and almost all the contact was with the ball. Play on IMO.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see how you call a foul on this play at all. It looked like he got the ball and almost all the contact was with the ball. Play on IMO.

Peace

Some would argue that the foul is on the follow through when the offensive player was hit in the face (not necessarily making this argument).

[Nevadaref]

Seemed in the arena that VCU benefited from a slow 5-second count in OT to score the winning basket against FSU. Opposite of TX/AZ game. Thoughts?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Some would argue that the foul is on the follow through when the offensive player was hit in the face (not necessarily making this argument).

The contact was mostly with the ball and maybe at the end there was contact with the face. But that was a result of the overall block (which was legal). I think that would be a lame foul to call. Just like a player that knocks the ball away on a dribbler and there is some contact after the ball is loose and no one is put at a disadvantage with some contact that takes place.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Some would argue that the foul is on the follow through when the offensive player was hit in the face (not necessarily making this argument).

I have a foul for the blow to the head.

[Camron Rust]

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.

What if they are BOTH airborne such that no one was in their paths when they jumped and such that their paths are crossing? Which ONE has the right to land and how are you going to decide?