Ohio St vs. Iowa St video request.

[canuckrefguy]

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

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

[OKREF]

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?

[APG]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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?

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

[NewYorker]

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?

More men’s officiating guidance

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel also reviewed, as an informational item, rules committee discussions about officiating in the men’s game.

Committee members believe that charge/block calls in some cases were not made correctly, sometimes giving the defense an advantage.

To help address that circumstance, the committee approved guidelines to help better administer these rules:

Before the offensive player (with the ball) becomes airborne, the defender must have two feet on the floor, be facing the opponent and be stationary to draw a charge. Otherwise, it should be a blocking foul.
Secondary defenders (help defenders) moving forward or to the side are also in violation and those should be blocking fouls.
Contact that is “through the chest” is not de facto proof of a charge. The rule in its entirety must be considered before determining a foul.
In some cases, it appears a defender is being rewarded solely for being outside the arc, without considering the other aspects of the rules.

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

[tmagan]

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

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?



PROP approves basketball court-surface rule - NCAA.org

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

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?

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

[ballgame99]

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

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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

I agree. Looking at the replay the defender is still moving forward when the offensive player has both feet off the ground. He is definitely not set.

The offensive player was undercut in this instance. Even if not airborne, if someone is moving with momentum and in the act of jumping he has no ability to avoid making contact with a defender that sets right under him in that moment.

Craft moved forward and got his feet out before his body caught up with him and there is no way the offensive player could have avoid the contact. The NCAA should really review this and adjust the rules to ensure that the defense can not run this kind of play as the whole point of the restricted area is to limit collisions and injuries.

I think he was airborne before Craft was set but that is somewhat subjective. It's very close. But regardless, there was no way for the offensive player to avoid the contact. Craft came forward as he was jumping towards the basket. This is exactly what the NCAA is trying to eliminate.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

This wouldn't be an RA block in the NBA, but a regular blocking foul because the defender got there late IMO (by NBA rules). In the NBA, the defender has to be there a little bit earlier than they do under NCAA/NFHS rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

This wouldn't be an RA block in the NBA, but a regular blocking foul because the defender got there late IMO (by NBA rules). In the NBA, the defender has to be there a little bit earlier than they do under NCAA/NFHS rules.

I was mainly addressing his assertion of having to have a place to change direction. The RA part is a different part of the discussion as opposed to the getting to the spot or being in LGP. I think he was there based on what I saw, but would need to see it again as most of the focus was about the heel over the RA after the game.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

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?



PROP approves basketball court-surface rule - NCAA.org

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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

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

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

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.