Indiana v. Michigan State Clips

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Tio

Is it just me or does the official point at the player on the ground in play #1 who took an elbow? The gesture looks a bit antagonistic.

I agree, you don't see a ton of birddogs anymore, especially a birddog all up in someone's face like that.

on #1 - by NFHS rules and POE, do you call that an intentional foul by the offensive guy? Elbow contact above the shoulders? I guess it depends on your definition of stationary. I would say just go with the PC. I don't see a block here.

#2 - agree with the block, defender is late in reestablishing his LGP, and even though it looks to be a travel, that is a tough call full speed. Count the bucket; he had definitely gathered prior to contact. All that said, that was an ugly play and a TOUGH call.

#3 - Yikes. Not a good angle, but defender looks to have played good defense. Minimal contact to boot. I'm not calling that in the first quarter, much less with 3 seconds to go.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I agree, you don't see a ton of birddogs anymore, especially a birddog all up in someone's face like that.

on #1 - by NFHS rules and POE, do you call that an intentional foul by the offensive guy? Elbow contact above the shoulders? I guess it depends on your definition of stationary. I would say just go with the PC. I don't see a block here.

NO. IMO, that is not anything like what they want on an elbow foul or even a PC foul. Yes, the elbow was moving and there was contact with it, but it was moving as part of normal running mechanics. The defender ran into it. Tough luck for the defender.

The block (probably more of a hold or handcheck) was there as the defenders ares were across the dribbler's torso.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

NO. IMO, that is not anything like what they want on an elbow foul or even a PC foul. Yes, the elbow was moving and there was contact with it, but it was moving as part of normal running mechanics. The defender ran into it. Tough luck for the defender.

Depends on whether or not you believe the NFHS is modeling their POE after NCAA-M and want it called in the same manner. If so, than this is an FF1 in NCAA-M and an intentional in NFHS.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rickman5

I'm still not sold number 2 is a block. What did the defender do wrong? He established legal guarding position and moved laterally to maintain it. The offensive player created the contact. Definitely shouldn't have been scored, regardless.

Laterally is with respect to the direction of the opponent, not the basket or any specific line on the floor. The offensive player took a new path making the defender lose LPG. The defender, jumped partially (obliquely) toward the opponent in an attempt to get back into his path. He didn't get there. Even if you don't consider that B1 lost LGP, his movement was still towards the opponent at the time of contact.

[OKREF]

I still haven't seen or heard anything that makes me want to count the basket. Zellers may have started initially, but after the contact he steps twice and to me regathers to shoot. Doesn't look like it is the same initial start.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Laterally is with respect to the direction of the opponent, not the basket or any specific line on the floor. .

First, I think play 2 was a block - for the same reasons others have posted. The defender did move into the offensive player.

But this statement has me puzzled, Camron. Lateral movement is in reference to the person moving...the defender can move laterally from their initial LGP without violating the rules. It has nothing to do with the movement of the offensive player.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

But this statement has me puzzled, Camron. Lateral movement is in reference to the person moving...the defender can move laterally from their initial LGP without violating the rules. It has nothing to do with the movement of the offensive player.

Lateral movement always has to do with the location of the offensive player, not any specific direction on the court or direction the defender moves from their initial spot.

If the offensive player has moved to the side of the defender, the defender can't move "laterally" relative to their initial position or the offense's prior location as that would put them moving towards the opponent. It may have been a lateral direction before the offense moved but that is no longer a lateral direction....it is towards the opponent.

If you were to imagine a curtain/wall/plane directly between the offense and defense at all times, such that it moves relative to the positions of the two players, the defender can't be moving into/towards that wall when contact occurs. They can only move along that wall (laterally) or away from that wall (obliquely away). That wall/curtain/plane can be at any angle at any given time but is always passing between the torsos of the players.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Lateral movement always has to do with the location of the offensive player, not any specific direction on the court or direction the defender moves from their initial spot.

If the offensive player has moved to the side of the defender, the defender can't move "laterally" relative to their initial position or the offense's prior location as that would put them moving towards the opponent. It may have been a lateral direction before the offense moved but that is no longer a lateral direction....it is towards the opponent.

If you were to imagine a curtain/wall/plane directly between the offense and defense at all times, such that it moves relative to the positions of the two players, the defender can't be moving into/towards that wall when contact occurs. They can only move along that wall (laterally) or away from that wall (obliquely away). That wall/curtain/plane can be at any angle at any given time but is always passing between the torsos of the players.

So you are talking about the whole "head and shoulders past the defender" type of thing? If so, I agree...

[KevinP]

Lowered shoulder into chest of MSU defender, Zeller initiated contact IMO good defensive position

[APG]

Originally Posted by KevinP

Lowered shoulder into chest of MSU defender, Zeller initiated contact IMO good defensive position

Again, what does lowering a shoulder have to do with this? If you think the defender has legal guarding position, then you have a charge because the opponent went to and through a legally positioned player. Believe it or not, there's nothing against lowering one's shoulder.

[tomegun]

Disclosure: I am from Indiana so...I'm a Hoosier.

#1 - I wouldn't have any problem with a FF1. I don't really see a foul on the defender that would cause the official to point at him so much, but that is kind of his (the official's) style.

#2 - I can see why so many think the basket shouldn't count. The official can't really see this when he is already moving to the table after his whistle. That being the case, not sure how he can see the travel. I think it is a blocking foul though.

#3 - IMO, not a foul. Honestly, last night I immediately thought if someone on this board would bring this up and I associated this call with some of our esteemed members comments about the NBE. I don't know how long that official has been doing games of this magnitude, but I wonder if his partners agreed with his call. Not calling that takes away much of the suspense, but I don't think it should have been called. By the way, Gary Harris is a Hoosier (from Indy) too.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by rickman5

I'm still not sold number 2 is a block. What did the defender do wrong? He established legal guarding position and moved laterally to maintain it. The offensive player created the contact. Definitely shouldn't have been scored, regardless.

Originally Posted by Indianaref

I'm with you on this one.

I'm with you guys on this one. I don't see how the defender moved toward the ball handler in this clip, and my opinion has nothing to do with "lowering the shoulder".

I also believe that if this had been called a PC foul, most of us would be talking about what a good call it was because the offensive player initiated contact.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Disclosure: I am from Indiana so...I'm a Hoosier.

#1 - I wouldn't have any problem with a FF1. I don't really see a foul on the defender that would cause the official to point at him so much, but that is kind of his (the official's) style.
#2 - I can see why so many think the basket shouldn't count. The official can't really see this when he is already moving to the table after his whistle. That being the case, not sure how he can see the travel. I think it is a blocking foul though.

#3 - IMO, not a foul. Honestly, last night I immediately thought if someone on this board would bring this up and I associated this call with some of our esteemed members comments about the NBE. I don't know how long that official has been doing games of this magnitude, but I wonder if his partners agreed with his call. Not calling that takes away much of the suspense, but I don't think it should have been called. By the way, Gary Harris is a Hoosier (from Indy) too.

The point was to counter the dramatics by defender and a 'gotcha' (I really saw what happened) This is a call that needs selling(albeit the wrong call IMHO)

[JRutledge]

1) I think this was not a hand-check but an elbow that took place first. I think the official saw the extension but did not see the elbow to the head. It should have been a FF1 IMO.

2) I think it was a shooting foul, but maybe not a basket that should have been awarded.

3) Angle makes this difficult, but the defender goes forward, even kind of leaves his feet and then has some contact with the shooter. I have no problem with that call in principle, but would like to see the angle the official had to know how much the motion was affected.

Peace

[fullor30]

1# Defender gets love tap to face prior to "hand check" Going with the felony here.

#2 After a few viewings, we are going other way. I suspect I would have called a block. No shot
#3 from video, weak call, defender has great verticality, shooter leans in looking for a bail out.