Ohio St vs. Iowa St video request.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

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.

There is nothing in the rule that says he has to be set. Absolutely nothing in the rules supports your assertion here.

And as I have said before, this is why you cannot use a still picture to determine much of anything. I see a shooter with a foot still on the floor at the time of this picture.

Originally Posted by NewYorker

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.

Again, nothing in the rule about being set. Being set is not the requirement. All that is required is the defender be in LGP before an airborne shooter leaves the floor and they cannot take away their ability to land if they were not in position. It only requires the defender be vertical and have their feet in position before the shooter leaves the floor. I do not think the NCAA needs to review anything, I think you need to learn what the actual rule says and not use some standard that does not apply. I will say this again, it might have been a block as the video would be more helpful, but the standard you are using is not rules based at this time.

Peace

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is nothing in the rule that says he has to be set. Absolutely nothing in the rules supports your assertion here.

And as I have said before, this is why you cannot use a still picture to determine much of anything. I see a shooter with a foot still on the floor at the time of this picture.



Again, nothing in the rule about being set. Being set is not the requirement. All that is required is the defender be in LGP before an airborne shooter leaves the floor and they cannot take away their ability to land if they were not in position. It only requires the defender be vertical and have their feet in position before the shooter leaves the floor. I do not think the NCAA needs to review anything, I think you need to learn what the actual rule says and not use some standard that does not apply. I will say this again, it might have been a block as the video would be more helpful, but the standard you are using is not rules based at this time.

Peace

He's not stationary - and the rules do say that. You can clearly see that both his body and his left foot has moved while the offensive player is in the air. According to the rules - that is a blocking foul. Or then stationary doesn't really mean stationary. Game set match.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

He's not stationary - and the rules do say that. You can clearly see that both his body and his left foot has moved while the offensive player is in the air. According to the rules - that is a blocking foul. Or then stationary doesn't really mean stationary. Game set match.

Then reference the rule. It is not hard to find. And this was posted already by APG and you can see the video. But his feet are on the floor before the guys leaves the floor to shoot. That is the first thing and he never moves his feet to take away the shooter's movement or path.

The NCAA Rule is 4-35-5 BTW. Here is the portion of the rule. Notice they do not use the word "set" anywhere in the language.

Art. 5. To establish legal guarding position on a player without the ball:
a. Time and distance shall be required to attain an initial legal guarding
position;
b. The guard shall give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact;
c. The distance given by the opponent of the player without the ball need not be more than two strides; and
d. When the opponent is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal guarding position before the opponent left the playing court.

Peace

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then reference the rule. It is not hard to find. And this was posted already by APG and you can see the video. But his feet are on the floor before the guys leaves the floor to shoot. That is the first thing and he never moves his feet to take away the shooter's movement or path.

The NCAA Rule is 4-35-5 BTW. Here is the portion of the rule. Notice they do not use the word "set" anywhere in the language.

Art. 5. To establish legal guarding position on a player without the ball:
a. Time and distance shall be required to attain an initial legal guarding
position;
b. The guard shall give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact;
c. The distance given by the opponent of the player without the ball need not be more than two strides; and
d. When the opponent is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal guarding position before the opponent left the playing court.

Peace

Your quote here further proves my point. The guard did not give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact. That's what I said earlier. He was not given a chance to change direction. He wasn't even given one stride much less two. Time and distance was not given. So by that definition already it is a blocking foul. Also, according the NCAA reference above - he was note stationary. And he moved his left foot while the player was in the air - therefore both feet were not on the floor and time and distance were not given.

This is a blocking foul. It's pretty clear cut.

[APG]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

Your quote here further proves my point. The guard did not give the opponent the time and distance to avoid contact. That's what I said earlier. He was not given a chance to change direction. He wasn't even given one stride much less two. Time and distance was not given. So by that definition already it is a blocking foul. Also, according the NCAA reference above - he was note stationary. And he moved his left foot while the player was in the air - therefore both feet were not on the floor and time and distance were not given.

This is a blocking foul. It's pretty clear cut.

No time or distance is required to be given to a player with the ball....the rule that was quoted was in reference to a player WITHOUT THE BALL.

[APG]

Rule 4, Section 35

Art. 4. To establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball:

a. The guard shall have both feet touching the playing court. When the guard jumps into position initially, both feet must return to the playing court after the jump, for the guard to attain a legal guarding position.

b. The guard’s torso shall face the opponent.

c. No time and distance shall be required.

d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal guarding position before the opponent left the playing court.
(Exception: Rule 4-35.7)

[OKREF]

If you watch the play, the shooter actually looks to get bumped into CrFt by another Ohio State player, getting fouled before the call.

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by APG

Rule 4, Section 35

Art. 4. To establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball:

a. The guard shall have both feet touching the playing court. When the guard jumps into position initially, both feet must return to the playing court after the jump, for the guard to attain a legal guarding position.

b. The guard’s torso shall face the opponent.

c. No time and distance shall be required.

d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal guarding position before the opponent left the playing court.
(Exception: Rule 4-35.7)

He clearly moved his left foot back though. So that does mean he he did not have both feet on the ground. What is the explanation there?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

This is a blocking foul. It's pretty clear cut.

It may be a blocking foul, but not 1 of your reasons (set, time distance, moved a foot, etc.) for it being a block is correct. You are wrong on all counts.