Butler-VCU (or VCU-Butler) Conversation

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by vbzebra

charge on both and nothing on rebound foul. Anyone else? Granted, I'm not on the floor for that game, but hey, you asked, and i gave my .01 cents

I agree on all three counts.

Originally Posted by Judtech

Kudos to the LEAD for following the "Double whistle not double preliminary" rule!!
Here is my question, and Im drawing a blank. IMO it looked like the VCU player started into his 'shooting/lay up' motion prior to making contact with the Butler player. However, when contact was made IMO again the Butler player was 'there'.
So my question is: Does the shooting motion supercede LGP or vice versa? I'm sure it is an easy answer but like I said, drawing a blank

It is not the beginning of the shooting motion or the try which matters. It is the point at which the offensive player becomes airborne, and airborne is defined as BOTH feet having left the playing surface.
Until that time the defender may obtain any spot on the court and draw a charge, with the exception of directly under the basket at the NCAA level.

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

The Butler guy was late - not by a lot, but still late. If the VCU player starts his layup before the defender "is there", it's a block.

I have to disagree with your understanding of the college rule. As I just wrote above, the start of the layup has nothing to do with it. I suggest that you take a few moments and dig into the NCAA rulesbook, and then see if your position changes. Of course, what you have written is the way that the NBA does it. I have no idea how FIBA handles these situations.

[Nevadaref]

BTW on the block/charge play involving #23 of VCU and Vanzant of Butler, I don't believe that the VCU player is in the act of shooting at the time of the contact. He has gathered the ball, but has made no motion that I can see which involves starting to throw for goal. In the super-slow one can see that he isn't even looking at the ring at the time of the contact. It isn't until afterwards that he squares himself and shoots.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW on the block/charge play involving #23 of VCU and Vanzant of Butler, I don't believe that the VCU player is in the act of shooting at the time of the contact. He has gathered the ball, but has made no motion that I can see which involves starting to throw for goal. In the super-slow one can see that he isn't even looking at the ring at the time of the contact. It isn't until afterwards that he squares himself and shoots.

Really? This is easily in the act to me....wasn't even a question.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Really? This is easily in the act to me....wasn't even a question.

Yes, really!

Go back to your video clip (which is awesome btw [thanks so much for doing these!]) and pause it at 45 seconds. That looks to me to be an excellent moment of contact point. Please take that still photo and post it. I don't believe that the VCU player is doing anything that is part of the act of shooting. He has simply ended his dribble by grabbing the ball with two hands and is taking steps across the lane. He is merely on his way to where he wishes to jump from and make his try for goal. The defender prevented him from reaching that location.

Lastly, please note that the player is RIGHT-handed, yet at the moment of contact he is holding the ball off to the left side of his head with the palm of his RIGHT (shooting) hand facing away from the goal. Obviously, he may attempt a left-handed layup with his off hand, but that doesn't look to be likely from the game action to me. He even subsequently pulls up following the contact, twists the ball around to reorient his hands the other way, and then takes a short jumper.

I'll grant that the player does intend to shoot as there is no other option for him given his court location and the placement of the other players. However, he wasn't yet shooting at the time of the contact. It seems that you consider him to be attempting a try due to his proximity to the goal. If we teleported this action to the division line, then no one would think that the player was in the act.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW on the block/charge play involving #23 of VCU and Vanzant of Butler, I don't believe that the VCU player is in the act of shooting at the time of the contact. He has gathered the ball, but has made no motion that I can see which involves starting to throw for goal. In the super-slow one can see that he isn't even looking at the ring at the time of the contact. It isn't until afterwards that he squares himself and shoots.

That's the answer I think I am looking for. I do disagree in that I thought he was in the act of shooting but based on not being airborne I think they may have missed this one. (Yes, I even super s l o w moded it) To me it looked like he gathered, took a step then crash. BUT the first part is what I was looking for!!

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Here's the play that zeedonk is referring to:

Block or charge?

Player control. My belief is that the C's call was 100% wrong.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Foul or a player getting out jumped?

No foul here. The call took away a great rebounding effort.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Marginal/incidental contact or charge?

I've got a foul against the ball carrier.

[drofficial]

Boys, if that is not a charge (the one where Jamie held the call), then there is no such thing as a charge. Offesive player straight thru torso of defender with LGP. Easy, easy call. I am sure Jamie had a charge...

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by drofficial

Boys, if that is not a charge (the one where Jamie held the call), then there is no such thing as a charge. Offesive player straight thru torso of defender with LGP. Easy, easy call. I am sure Jamie had a charge...

From the looks of his body language as he finishes his signal and looks at Luckie, I don't think Driscoll liked the call very much. Of course he might have been fine with the call, but just a little nervous about what might have been had Luckie not held his preliminary.

[Adam]

Looks like an easy charge to me.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Looks like an easy charge to me.

...says my wife when she goes shopping...

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

I'm really disappointed with Kellogg this year. I have found him to be pretty good in the past, and not all that bad from a ref's point of view, but this year, he's been a lot less understanding about basic rules and vocabulary. Doggone it.

He also seems to feel like he has to talk CONSTANTLY.

Steve Kerr can barely get a word in but when he does, his comments are far more interesting.

Do us a favor tonight, Clark. Don't talk just because you can.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by drofficial

Boys, if that is not a charge (the one where Jamie held the call), then there is no such thing as a charge. Offesive player straight thru torso of defender with LGP. Easy, easy call. I am sure Jamie had a charge...

Like I posted earlier, there is an argument for a blocking foul based on the defender's knee sticking out. Depends if you felt the first contact was to the torso or to the leg.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Like I posted earlier, there is an argument for a blocking foul based on the defender's knee sticking out. Depends if you felt the first contact was to the torso or to the leg.

Hmm. That's what I get for commenting after one view. I think the first contact was with the extended leg/knee, but I think that contact was incidental and had no effect on either player. The contact in the torso, however, was PC foul.

That, of course, is with the benefit of slow motion replay. It's a lot more natural in real time, from the C's angle, to see that outstretched leg and call a block. I can't fault him for that.

[Camron Rust]

Rebounding foul....

Perhaps the call was for the push in the back that moved the VCU player forward a couple of feet before they went up for the ball. Had the Butler player not moved him forward, the Butler player wouldn't have been able to get to the rebound. I'd delay the whistle on that to see if the ball came off in that direction before blowing that a foul.

The style signal provided seemed imply it was for that part of the action.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rebounding foul....

Perhaps the call was for the push in the back that moved the VCU player forward a couple of feet before they went up for the ball. Had the Butler player not moved him forward, the Butler player wouldn't have been able to get to the rebound. I'd delay the whistle on that to see if the ball came off in that direction before blowing that a foul.

The style signal provided seemed imply it was for that part of the action.

Agreed. Delayed whistle with the correct result.