Rule 4-56

Section 56. Restricted Area
The restricted area is defined as the area bounded by the outer edge of the restricted area arc, which has a 3-foot radius measured from the center of the basket and extending to the face of the backboard (See court diagram in Rule

1). A secondary defender is considered to be in the restricted area when any part of either foot is in or above this area.

Peace

Nope, those amount to the same. The issue is whether his heel was over or completely beyond/outside of the plane of the arc. I thought that you worked college men's games.

See below.
Correct.

Section 56. Restricted Area
The restricted area is defined as the area bounded by the outer edge of the restricted area arc, which has a 3-foot radius measured from the center of the basket and extending to the face of the backboard (See court diagram in Rule 1). A secondary defender is considered to be in the restricted area when any part of either foot is in or above this area.

Thanks fellas - wow, basically opposite to the FIBA rule:

33.10
On any penetration play situation into the no-charge semi-circle area a contact caused by an airborne offensive player with a defensive player inside the no-charge semi-circle shall not be called as an offensive foul, unless the offensive player is illegally using his hands, arms, legs or body, when
• the offensive player is in control of the ball whilst airborne, and
• he attempts a shot for a field goal or passes off the ball, and
• the defensive player has both feet inside the no-charge semi-circle area.

Huh?

I was commenting to give whomever would post the video to know why this play should be reviewed and what play was called. It was an issue of the RA, not whether the call was correct. In your effort to "prove someone wrong" I was not even commenting on whether the call was correct. I do work NCAA ball and did know that it was possible this call could have been right or wrong based on if the heal or foot was actually over the RA. It was close and in the commentary after the game there were better views and replay to show how close this play actually was.

I would also suggest if possible that they use some of the footage after the game to show how the heal might have been related to the RA. It does appear that the call "technically" was missed.

There was also conversation with John Adams about the play and he was not convinced that the Craft had his foot over the line. It was really close and harder in full speed.

Peace

Adams on TV right now - not saying whether the official missed the call or not. TV replay shows foot above (though not touching) the line. Pretty fine distinction to be making at full speed under those circumstances. Yikes :eek:

And Rut....it's H - E - E - L not H - E - A - L :D

Adams was doing everything he could to protect his guy, which is right. His heel was over the line, which puts him in the RA. My question is this, they stop the game all the time for video review, why isn't this reviewable?

Actually his first comment about it in the interview was that the heel was over the line and the incorrect call was made. Later, near the end of the interview, after a stupid question by Smith, he said he wasn't convinced that the heel WAS over the line. So he both agreed and disagreed.:D

This would be a reviewable play in the NBA in the final two minutes of the 4th and all of OT.

One question I have. The defensive player is clearly not set before the offensive player has initiated his shot. The offensive player has to be given a chance to change directions to avoid the contact. He is not. You can clearly see that the defensive player is moving into position as the offensive player is beginning his jump into the air.

It should not matter if he is in the restricted area or not, it should be a blocking foul, no?

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...t-surface+rule

I do not understand the big deal about this restricted area controversy. Was the secondary defender in the restricted area? Probably. But even if it were reviewable, the call should not have been overturned because the evidence was not indisputable. That being said, as Jay Bilas has said, the restricted area should be at NBA dimensions.

The rule says a defender has to have a legal position before the offensive player is airborne...not before he initiated his shot. Also, a defender is not required to give time or distance to a player in control of the ball.

Not true. Nothing in the rules says anything about being allowed to change direction. The only issue is the defender in LGP or if he maintained it before the shooter went airborne. I think that reference you are making is an NBA distinction and even then I have heard NBA officials treat the plays the same at that level and the NCAA level.

Peace

Beginning to jump would equate to the upward movement criterion of the NBA rules. However at the NCAA level the defender has until the offensive player becomes airborne, which means both feet no longer in contact with the floor. So watch It again and judge it by NCAA rules to Determine this aspect of the play.

The ra discussion wasn't the issue, wasn't craft way late getting there? Shooter was airborne before he obtained Lgp imo