Its official

[tref]

Although DI is the only level required to have the RA marked this season, all levels will adjudicate secondary defenders the same whether the floor is marked or not.

Calls that should be an absolute are going to be strictly judgement below DI & unfortunately help cannot be offered...

I smell trouble brewing!

[JRutledge]

This rule was always a problem. That was illustrated by what I saw yesterday at a JC Jamboree. Many close plays that were very difficult to even see clearly.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This rule was always a problem. That was illustrated by what I saw yesterday at a JC Jamboree. Many close plays that were very difficult to even see clearly.

Peace

True, but under the rim (last season) was more clear cut as it was a smaller area. Either they were under the rim or they weren't. Looking forward to the challenge though!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

True, but under the rim (last season) was more clear cut as it was a smaller area. Either they were under the rim or they weren't. Looking forward to the challenge though!

Yes, but that means the call will be just as difficult when you have to make a judgment based on image that cannot see clearly on the floor. The area did expand, but it will be even harder to split hairs either way without a marking. And I hope schools put this on the court, but I do not see a lot of schools having a RA on the court.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

...
I smell trouble brewing!

Wait til you have to explain to a coach why after a long rebound out to the 3-point line followed by a drive to the basket and a crash in the RA that the secondary defender rule doesn't apply in this situation. (A.R. 125 in the new case book for rule 4-61.3)

[tref]

IKR! Or why we are going the other way when A1 comes to a stop then jumps into B1 who is clearly in the RA.
Hopefully they actually watch the video...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Wait til you have to explain to a coach why after a long rebound out to the 3-point line followed by a drive to the basket and a crash in the RA that the secondary defender rule doesn't apply in this situation. (A.R. 125 in the new case book for rule 4-61.3)

I could be totally wrong, but something tells me that is not the intent of that rule or what they envisioned with that ruling. I think they want a closer rebound to eliminate that restriction. At least that is what the example in the Rules Video was showing. I hope they clear that up or use some better language in the future.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I could be totally wrong, but something tells me that is not the intent of that rule or what they envisioned with that ruling. I think they want a closer rebound to eliminate that restriction. At least that is what the example in the Rules Video was showing. I hope they clear that up or use some better language in the future.

Peace

The rules video (with the players acting out scenarios) shows a rebound being tipped out towards the 3-point line followed by a drive to the basket and a crash w/i the RA. It's ruled a PC b/c there is no secondary defender/RA on this type of play. It's around the 25:40 mark of the video. The commentary says "tipped to a wing player". So I guess we would have to decide how far out a tip/rebound can go and determine "immediate drive to the basket".

[tref]

Art. 3. After an offensive rebound, there are no secondary defenders when the rebounder makes an immediate move to the basket.

I dont think it matters how far the rebound travels, an immediate move to the basket is the key here.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by tref

Art. 3. After an offensive rebound, there are no secondary defenders when the rebounder makes an immediate move to the basket.

I dont think it matters how far the rebound travels, an immediate move to the basket is the key here.

Terrible. Just adopt the NBA rule all the way. Widen the lane, mark the LDB and make a 4' arc. All this pussyfooting around is dumb. We all know what they want, so just DO it.

[tref]

Sounds like a new Nike commercial! Got an agent Scrapper1?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Terrible. Just adopt the NBA rule all the way. Widen the lane, mark the LDB and make a 4' arc. All this pussyfooting around is dumb. We all know what they want, so just DO it.

Exactly...it's like they don't want to go all in on the rule.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by tref

Sounds like a new Nike commercial! Got an agent Scrapper1?

Actually, I'd probably need a lawyer for copyright infringement or something if Nike ever saw that post.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The rules video (with the players acting out scenarios) shows a rebound being tipped out towards the 3-point line followed by a drive to the basket and a crash w/i the RA. It's ruled a PC b/c there is no secondary defender/RA on this type of play. It's around the 25:40 mark of the video. The commentary says "tipped to a wing player". So I guess we would have to decide how far out a tip/rebound can go and determine "immediate drive to the basket".

I agree this could cause some confusion without a doubt. If you brought it up I am sure others will make similar observations. The ball was not quite as far away from the basket as you said, then again, there are not going to be two or three players on the court and there is likely going to be other defenders on the way to the basket.

And the more I think about it, I could see more schools with this marking if they play at their own facility. The three point line changed a few years ago and everyone had that in place. I would think this is a smaller area to deal with; it is just a matter of desire to have the marking more than anything.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Actually, I'd probably need a lawyer for copyright infringement or something if Nike ever saw that post.

Since I have friends at Nike, I could forward your post. However, for a modest financial consideration, I could forget I ever saw it. Just message me your debit card number and PIN. Thanks.