Indiana v. Michigan State Clips
 

Asked to post these plays:

Handcheck then elbow:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/YE5J2iLFF4A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Blocking foul and 1:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hRsRvoaYeuU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Foul on 3 point try:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/aXYIrlM2rwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks APG.

#2 = yuck.

#1. That is a pretty weak foul to call. It clearly didn't reroute, impede, displace, or dislodge and offensive player was left with essentially an undefended layup.

#2. Good block. Defender was jumping towards the shooter at the time of contact.

#3. I do not like the foul call at all. I don't see anything that defender did wrong short of not getting out of the way.

I'm with you on 1 and 2. On 3 I simply don't have any kind of an angle. Give me the T's angle and I'll have an opinion.

1. How was A disadvantaged? If they call the handcheck, and the elbow gets called upon review, it looks like we have a double foul of sorts. :D

2. Looks close. I think B went forward slightly = block.

3. I have nothing on this. If I had the T's angle, I hope I didn't see something that only he saw.

I agree that it is a block in 2. However the basket was counted
Does anyone agree that the basket should count?

Block call. I had PC w shoulder lowered by Zeller.

I agree. Doesn't appear to me that offense had started shooting motion.

should not count, imo. The player travelled after the foul, and that should end the try. Absent the travel, count the basket.

Lowered shoulder? Is there some magical degree where when the shoulder is lower than that, it equals a foul on that player?

Agreed.

Bob,
Based on your statement, "ending the TRY", you would wave off the basket (due to the travel), but still shoot two free throws since, by your statement, the try had indeed started, correct?

By the way, I happen to think that we count MANY baskets in precisely these scenarios BECAUSE we really don't have mechanics for indicating the player had STARTED the try for goal, BUT the foul caused a travel that SHOULD negate the basket. For example report to the table, Black 21, push, 2 shots, no basket, travel signal....Since we do not have any such mechanics, IF a shooter is clearly in the act of shooting when fouled, travels (regardless how noticeably), and MAKES the shot, referees disregard the travel and count the basket in virtually every case....

How often do you see this?

Sure we do. Wave your arms in front of your chest and state "no shot".

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

On #2, I've got defender jumping into the dribbler. I don't even think I'm shooting two, though, on this.

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.

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.

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)

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...

#3 IMO, really bad call. Why did he work out onto the court instead of going down the sideline to get a better angle? His position is HORRIBLE! Speaking of position, what the heck was the C doing? This was a good example of bad positioning. We can work with two Cs, we should never work with two Ts!

Partially, but not exactly. Even without the head and shoulders being past, there are directions that are legal and directions that are not. What directions those are depend on where the offensive player is.

If, while the defender was moving, the offensive player were able to magically and instantly stop just (pick you own very small distance) short of contact, would the defender's movement still create contact? If so, the defender's movement was not lateral or obliquely away and it should be a block. If the defender's movement would carry them by without contact or even farther way, then the movement was lateral or obliquely away and legal (assuming initial LGP was previously obtained and continuously maintained).

Without commenting on the call in the video, I disagree with your statement here. Depending on what the offense and defense are doing, two Ts can be helpful.

Four corner offensive would require two T's

The C was completely stacked by the players on the wing. I think even dropping low would have still left him stacked, thus his only view of the shot was to go high (not that he should be looking there). He got a good look at both players though.

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