2011 NCAAM Sweet 16
 

To talk about this week's action

Jimmer - gone,
Coach K - gone,
Sir Charles picked AZ and has bragging rights, and most importantly,
my wife's bracket still has Fla moving forward.......

The Capitol of the Confederacy & March Madness
 

Go Spiders & Go Rams!!!! It's not likely, but it would be great to see a UR vs VCU regional final. Not too shabby for the River City.

What's also great, is that both teams have 2 players each from the immediate area - VCU = Rozzell & Burgess -- UR = Harper & Brothers.

On my way in to work tonight, I noticed the Richmond has a sign board along one of the expressways that is counting down to the Spiders' tip off.

This may be Chris Mooney's last weekend coaching in Richmond. Shaka's also.

Play during the Bulter v. Wisconsin
 

Some discussion in the chat room last night on the following play. Agree or disagree with the call.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/42HGSrKApvQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

If he had set that screen without also having the ball would you have a problem with it?

I got nuthin....

Well I had illegal screen on the play but some argued against the call.

#11 is not trying to screen, he's passing the ball and gets hit by a defender. If there is anything on this play its a defensive foul on #54.

Just because he had the ball doesn't mean he wasn't trying to set a screen.

I do not have a foul, but that's after seeing the play in slow-motion replay.

In real time, I can see if one, me included, were to call this a foul.

Just one fact first: the contact occurred when the ball was out of A1's hands.

What I see is two players moving along their chosen paths. The offensive player's path is created first when he moves parallel to the end line. (He happens to be facing away from the basket - but the direction he faces doesn't matter.) After A1's path is established, defensive player B1 begins his path. They collide because the chosen paths of the two players intersect.

Since the offensive player established his path first, the onus is on the defensive player to avoid illegal contact.

The million dollar question is:

Does a player giving up player possession need to give time and distance if said player is committed to an established path? I say "no".

It does look like he threw his body into the defender to shield the pass attempt.

Not sure I would have called anything at first glance, but it appears to be the right call.

Peace

I'm not sure I said having the ball means you cannot screen. What I did say is he's making a pass and not screening, therefore this is not an illegal screen and a no-call would probably be the best decision, but if call a foul you must, defensive foul would be more appropriate than an illegal screen. ;)

Looks to me that he was passing the ball and setting a screen. I was an expert at setting screens in the high post while dropping the ball off to a cutting guard.

that is ABSOLUTELY an illegal screen. RSBQ (rythm, speed, balance, & quickness) also applies to a defender - if it is interrupted by an offensive player who has NOT establish a legal screening position...it is a FOUL.

if Les Jones wants to work next weekend, he better make that call - especially with John Adams sitting courtside.

btw -based on last nights game, Bryan Kersey and Brian Dorsey shouldn't wait for the "phone to ring" w/ an invitation to Houston...

I'm having trouble understanding how one sets a screen while their feet are off the ground and passing the ball. Maybe you could help me?

+1

I'll take this side.

I'm not sure how you call a block. What real advantage was gained by the defense?

Now, an illegal screen foul or just a foul? The contact definitely freed up the offensive player to take an unopposed shot.

The way I see the replay, he throws the pass and immediately realizes the defender has a clear path. He throws himself into that defender to clog up the path.

Great call from the C.

Passing the ball and having one's feet off the ground don't preclude a player from attempting to set a screen. As JRut said it appears Taylor threw his body into the defender. He was attempting to set a screen, IMO.

Does it matter? If he is trying to prevent the actions or affects the movements of the opponent, what we call it is not relevant in the bigger picture.

Am I alone in that thinking?

Peace

If thats your call, go with it my man ;) Beware of calls that commentators agree with! lol

Not just his call.

I always watch these replays without sound, so I have no idea whether the announcers agreed or not.

Haha this is true...I forgot to make the clip without sound like I try to do.

What do commentators have to do with it? I watched the play on YouTube with no sound.

I did notice a few officials agreed with the call. Should I beware of that also?

ya know what, you're completely right man, how dare me try to make a joke of such a serious moment...shame, shame on me I tell ya!

Lots of chatter on the internet about a technical foul called early in the second half in the SDSU/UConn game for a bump during a time out. Link at the bottom with a video; I don't know how to imbed.

On a more extended replay, they showed the entire play. SDSU scores a basket. Connecticut calls a TO. One of the SDSU players comes over to woof at Connecticut's walker -- getting into his face. He then backs off, but then on the way to the bench lowers the shoulder and gives him a bump. During the commercial, the crew apparently went to the monitor (as reported by the announcers -- you didn't see it on tv). They called a T.

I think seeing the whole play in context it's an easy T. But I also think there's clearly some embellishment on the part of the Connecticut player.

Is Kemba Walker a flopper or just a great player? - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

It appears to me that he went up in the air to make the pass, then collided with the defender. The contact had the result of freeing the shooter for an open shot. When he left the ground, his "intent" was not to throw his body into the defender, but that is what ended up happening.

FWIW, my final judgement would lean to a no-call, incidental contact. I don't consider what the offensive player was doing a screen, and the contact created by the defender did not disadvantage the offensiver player from passing the ball.

Of course, this is after having the luxury of watching it a few times in replay. I did not see the play live as I was watching the Ariz/Duke game.

Yep, he embellished, which may have served to draw the officials' attention and take them to the monitor. Even without the flop, it's at least a borderline T and therefore a stupid move.

Whether you consider it a screen isn't relevant. That's what it was. Even if it wasn't his intent, the result was an illegally screened defender.

I think it was a great play. Other terms used would be "crafty" "Cagey" "Grizzled Veteran move".
Foul. Sure. But I bet 9 times out of 10 you'd get away with it.
(I can neither confirm nor deny actually participating in such a manner:))

It's only funny if the audience has a clue what you're talking about. ;)

Haven't looked at the YouTube video but on the replays last night you can see an official (O'Neil?) right on the spot after it happened and he was pointing at the perpetrator.

Agreed on all counts. I drew three fouls one game, as a point guard, by purposefully crossing feet with my defender as we ran down the court. It was too easy.

+1

Easy T call. Why the need to use a monitor?

And how about those vote option after the link? "Total Flop" or a "Mugging". How about in the middle of the road?

Good question. To see if there was an elbow maybe?

FWIW, there was a T called earlier in the game for taunting behavior, so my guess is there were plenty of warnings on the floor.

Gotcha. Thanks for that. So then perhaps they were thinking that with an elbow or something, the foul would go beyond a T?

Agreed and similar to what BNR said, I could do something like this easily and purposely on the court.

I know Jones prides himself on being a play caller and he also emphasizes body contact like he called on this play.

I've got nothing on the Wisconsin play. I see Taylor changing his path, but not to get in the way of Howard. I see him changing paths to pass off to his teammate.

What's the NCAA rule about airborne players?

What does it matter "why" he changed is path? By doing so, he illegally impeded the path of his opponent. His intent is irrelevant on this play.

I "got it" and thought it was funny. :D

What about the flipside...how is Howard totally innocent?

Fair question. Howard sees an open player about to receive the ball and starts to head out to guard him. The question is, who gets the rights to the intersection of their paths?

Had the passer continued his dribble, the defender would have been charged, certainly. But he didn't, he passed, and his actions constituted a screen. Look at the results of the play, it's just like any other screen where the screener is late.

Another play from the BYU v. Florida game...block/charge play

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_OtvoqJYGGQ?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

I'd be banging the hips on this one for a block.

Also I should mention that his play preceded a technical foul by a player for arguing this play.

Ok, but how does the fact that Taylor is in the air change the equation? Isn't an airborne player entitled to land without obstruction?

Doesn't the "airborne" rule pertain to the shooter?

Other than that, isn't everyone entitled to a spot on the floor (exception is the secondary defender under the basket for NCAA-M)?

Except one has to legally get in the path of an airborne player before the player is airborne...with or without the ball. The only thing that will change with regards to having the ball or not is time and distance. It's never legal to undercut an airborne player.

Me too. Left leg was sticking way outside of his normal stance.

Agreed. Not even close to a foul by A1.

No doubt!

I'm not any more positive he was in the air than I am that Howard was in the air. It's pretty close, to be honest. And a screener doesn't get to launch himself into the air here just to make an otherwise illegal screen legal.

That's the point I'm trying to make here. If anything, it should be a foul on Howard. Obviously, if Howard were in that spot before Taylor took off, the impetus is on Taylor.

I still have nothing.

It's close, the contact is on the defender's left shoulder/chest. So, while B1's leg is a little wide, I don't see it as responsible for the contact. Had Jimmer tripped over the outstretched leg, it would be different, IMO.

Let me ask you this:
A2, setting a screen on B1, sees B1 is going to go around the screen. Just as B1 gets close, A2 jumps airborne into the path of B1 causing a collision.

You calling B1?

That's a fair and accurate description.

I should have said, "it's not close to me." I've got a block every day and twice on Sunday if this happened 8 times in one week.

B1's path is already established. It was A2 that changed his path to interfere with B1, so it's A2's foul. A2 becoming airborne doesn't release himself of responsibility of avoiding B1's path.

I'm seeing contact to the leg. I'm wondering if the primary defender blocked some of the view of the Lead?

I know now after looking at this video that if I'm lead on this particular type of play I'm gonna take a step or 2 to the right so I see around the primary defender.

Obviously not but I think the situation is completely different. Taylor made a basketball play. He jumped before he passed, and then he didn't change his path before Howard moved into it.

We see it differently, then.

1. I'ts hard to tell if his foot is off the ground. It's not a jump so much as a step in his trot.

2. Either way, it was a screen. He was moving when the contact was made, and he was not moving in a legal way for a screen.

Agree to disagree.

The more I watch the replay the more I'm convinced it's an illegal screen. From the initial angle you can see Howard taking a path to guard A2 and Carlton, sorry I mean Taylor, looks at Howard and changes not only his path of travel but also turns in midair so that his butt hits Howard. Then when you watch the replay from the backcourt camera you see that Howard gets T-boned by Taylor. Howard gets knocked over sideways because he was at the spot first. Similar to an accident at an intersection.

Exactly. Whether he intended to or not, the guard cut off the path of a defender without giving time/distance....illegal screen....every time.

Do we pass on a defensive foul where the defender swats the shooter's arm because the defender intended to hit the ball instead?

Yeah it looks like a typical Freedom of Movement/RSBQ play. We just rarely see the passer commit this foul.

Agreed.

You have a conflict between two rules and have to decide which one to apply....which one is relevant to the situation.

If the guard had kept the ball, probably a foul on Howard. But, in passing it away, he became a screener and is subject to the screening rules. (Yes, I know the ball handler can also be a screener).

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.

I see A1 as being airborne as he released the ball. To me, he's allowed to land safely because his path was clear when he left the floor. Because his status changed from having PC to not having PC, while airborne, he is in fact absolved of time and distance until he lands.

Where exactly can we find this in the rule/case books?

Are we to assume everytime a ball is passed, the passer is now automatically a screener? Where are you getting this?

Rule reference
 

RULE 4-35
Art. 5.

To establish legal guarding position on a player without the ball:

a. Time and distance shall be required to attain an initial legal position;

b. The guard shall give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact;

Approved Ruling 109

c. The distance given by the opponent of the player without the ball need not be more than two strides; and

d. When the opponent is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court.

This rule clearly defines that the foul is on Howard, not Taylor.

Can I assume that this is NCAA text?

The text seems to support my position.

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.

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.

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.

Right. If I heard the public address announcer correctly, the call was for unnecessary contact during a stoppage. (10.5.1(d).) I assume they want to the monitor to see whether it was flagrant (10.5.1(e)), which has a different penalty administration.

I saw that replay angle (it's included in the clip), and frankly it led me closer to my opinion here than the camera from half court did. That said, after watching it a couple of more times, I agree the contact was on the leg. The defender seems to keep moving left at this point, creating contact in the torso.

I disgree, however, that "it wasn't even close."

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

I can only hope tonight's game produce this much conversation haha

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.

Well stated, Camron. +1

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yeah-huh. Thrash-o-matic. :eek:

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.

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

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.

We've discussed this before.....
 

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

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.

Fixed it for ya! :)