2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[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?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 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?

I eluded to this in the chat room by saying that the count was really "5.5".

My thoughts: I'd bet a wobbly pop that it was longer than 5.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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?

"Seemed" long but I didn't time it.

[grunewar]

A local news station was reviewing this week's NCAAs. They talked about BYU and "the Jimmer" and the announcer called his last game, "A night to Fredette"

[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

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I pretty much agree with your view on the play. I was surprised the official put air in the whistle on this one and I think it was exactly for the contact to the face. Oh well.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I pretty much agree with your view on the play. I was surprised the official put air in the whistle on this one and I think it was exactly for the contact to the face. Oh well.

Those guys are obviously not perfect.

Peace

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Maybe? ya think?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Maybe? ya think?

I saw more contact with the ball then the face.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have a foul for the blow to the head.

+1

Incidental contact, ok, but this follow-through was a little heavy.

Big East: no call.