Ohio St vs. Iowa St video request.

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by NewYorker

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Hey? Speak for yourself. I will accept NewYorker's compliment. Thank you NewYorker. ("Yall" from a New Yorker? Forgedaboudit.)

I am special. Just ask my mother, and my three kids.

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

I never claimed to have more knowledge, I am only trying to understand why that call was a charge. I did not realize this board was for officials, I thought it was for complaining about officiating or controversial calls and a place for debating it. Maybe a sticky or something here would help keep non-officials like myself out.

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

I have no problem with contact. I do have problem with rewarding a defensive player for running up right under an offensive players path just as he is jumping. There was no way he could avoid the contact. Take jumpers? IS that what you want the game to be? I think that should be a blocking foul - forget about the rules for a second. That's the whole point of the restricted area - to prevent guys from running into the path of a guy that close to the basket when the offensive player is going to be committed to being airborne. I think thats the NBA does call it differently (I know you may debate this).

I think they will change it. You don't want guys colliding when one is jumping high into the air. Contact is one thing, but an offensive player is very vulnerable and I have seen some unpleasant injuries from a guy trying to take charges near the basket.

[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.

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.



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.

As I said, I am new here - there are no faq or sticky explaining this place is for officials only. So I am not sure how I am suppose to know that. I googled "iowa st ohio charge" and found this thread.

There is no way the offensive player can anticipate where a defender will go. He had a clear path to the basket when he began his shooting motion. Once you pick up your dribble and start gathering yourself or take a step you have incredible momentum now. You can't stop - you are committed. The defender was not there at that point. He moved in afterwards. So the offensive player had a path until then, he can't predict where the defense is going to go. But the defensive player knows where the offensive player is going. So you reward the defense for basically running in there and undercutting. I guarantee you if he came in from the side they would have called it a blocking foul. In fact I saw that in another game where it looked far more like a charge than this call but was called a blocking foul - but he was coming in from the side and not from the front. Fine, that's the rules, but in that situation you will often see the offensive player being airborne and the defender taking that charge or committing a blocking foul.

You can argue how you want to call it. But I'd like to see less defenders do that. Instead, play defense. I hate guys just diving in there trying to get a cheap charge call like that. My three cents.