Ohio St vs. Iowa St video request.

[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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by 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.

That was what I saw also, but did not hear one person even mention that on the tube. It actually looks like the other player pushes him into Craft -

I guess they can't argue the foul call because its judgement, but as far as a foot being on the floor or not - another story.

thanks
David

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

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?

Moving a foot back does not change the status of you being in LGP ever. Sorry, but again you either are not aware of the NCAA/NF Rules or you have never called a game in your life. This is pretty basic stuff you are arguing. That is why you have no one agreeing with you. And there is still a case to be made that this was block, but not for the reasons you are stating.

Peace

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Moving a foot back does not change the status of you being in LGP ever. Sorry, but again you either are not aware of the NCAA/NF Rules or you have never called a game in your life. This is pretty basic stuff you are arguing. That is why you have no one agreeing with you. And there is still a case to be made that this was block, but not for the reasons you are stating.

Peace

No kidding Sherlock, indeed I have never called a game in my life. Honestly, I used to play, saw the game and was perplexed as to the call. I came across the site accidentally.

Yall know your stuff. Wish the refs that called my games were as good as you guys.

Still - I think the rules need to be changed. There's no way that it helps the game when a guy can undercut him like that. It's not safe, nor is it in the spirit of the game in my opinion. You should not be able to slide under a player as he is jumping off the ground. BUt that is my opinion and certainly not the rule as you have so clearly indicated.

Congrats!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

No kidding Sherlock, indeed I have never called a game in my life. Honestly, I used to play, saw the game and was perplexed as to the call. I came across the site accidentally.

Well you do realize that playing the game means nothing when it comes to rules knowledge. I teach a class for newer officials in my area and the most common statement that someone makes when they come into officiating (and many played), they did not realize how little of the rules they knew before they officiated.

Originally Posted by NewYorker

Yall know your stuff. Wish the refs that called my games were as good as you guys.

A lot of guys off this board know their stuff as well. We are not special, we are just a handful that talk about it here. Most officials never come to this place or anything like it.

Originally Posted by NewYorker

Still - I think the rules need to be changed. There's no way that it helps the game when a guy can undercut him like that. It's not safe, nor is it in the spirit of the game in my opinion. You should not be able to slide under a player as he is jumping off the ground. BUt that is my opinion and certainly not the rule as you have so clearly indicated.

Congrats!

Well that is wonderful that you think the rules need to be changed, but it is usually the public or coaches and players that often do not know the rules. And not sure how the play in question had someone undercut. The rules are to be balanced and the RA was to help eliminate contact near or under the basket. But just like anything the offense has options. This player could have taken a jumper or done something else with the ball. So how far do you take the rule. And in my entire career this rule has not change other than the RA which only applies to the NCAA and NBA levels. If you do not want contact in the game, go play chess. Otherwise it is your responsibility as an offensive player to add other weapons to your game. They are not going to take away defensive play no matter what you or I think honestly.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

No kidding Sherlock, indeed I have never called a game in my life. Honestly, I used to play, saw the game and was perplexed as to the call. I came across the site accidentally.

Great. It would have perhaps been beneficial to have indicated you were not a ref. It sounded a lot like you were a newer official trying to say they got it wrong and the reasons why rather than someone just trying to learn the rules.

Originally Posted by NewYorker

Still - I think the rules need to be changed. There's no way that it helps the game when a guy can undercut him like that. It's not safe, nor is it in the spirit of the game in my opinion. You should not be able to slide under a player as he is jumping off the ground. BUt that is my opinion and certainly not the rule as you have so clearly indicated.

A lot of people make that same argument but it really doesn't hold water. The shooter could see him coming a long time before if they get their head up and look around. It isn't like he appeared out of thin air.

You could reverse the argument and say it isn't fair for a shooter to jump just as a defender is trying to get position!?!?

It is simply a matter of balance between the two sides. There has to be a line somewhere and this is where it is set. Move it either way and you still get a calls right on the edge.

[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.