Indiana v. Michigan State Clips

[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.

[Rich]

Eh, I have no problem counting the bucket in #2 on a blocking foul. Shrug.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Rich

Eh, I have no problem counting the bucket in #2 on a blocking foul. Shrug.

So you're saying that you don't have a travel on A1 or are you ignoring the travel violation due to the contact on the blocking foul?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So you're saying that you don't have a travel on A1 or are you ignoring the travel violation due to the contact on the blocking foul?

I'm not saying *I'd* necessarily count it. It's not the travel that catches my eye here, but the fact that the player regathers.

The problem is that once there's going to be a foul, Valentine is officiating the contact -- he's probably not even seeing the feet then -- I doubt he gets a travel after the foul.

[Indianaref]

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.

I'm with you on this one.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

I'm with you on this one.

To me, he jumped and closed distance on the player with the ball. It's really, really close, though, and I'm not making a big deal out of it being called either way. Some calls are close enough that it really can be called either way on the floor.

BTW, I can't believe not a single person corrected the OP, who posted the thread as Indiana vs. Michigan. This group is slipping (I've edited the title).

[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.

[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.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

That is how I see it too. I'm gathering from the other thread that they went to the monitor and called this elbow a deadball T, which I take to mean if it had occured during a live ball it would have been a FF1 (but because they called the defensive foul first the ball was dead). So it stands to reason that in NFHS this elbow could have/should have been ruled an intentional foul if it had been called instead of a defensive foul. I can only imagine the howling you would hear in a HS gym when you called this an intentional, but it would be the right call as far as I can tell.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

I was going to say that I don't even think this should be a FF1 in NCAA-M.

But, I re-watched the play from another angle. I do now. There was one angle that made it clear that he was actually leading with the elbow rather than the defender just running into a normally positioned elbow.

[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.