Ohio St vs. Iowa St video request.
 

5:10 first half. Non-shooting foul called. Looked to be a shooting foul against ISU. Clark Kellogg is a moron by the way....claims there is no continuation under NCAA rules.

No, he said he hadn't started his normal shooting motion prior to the foul. Seems this officials interpretation is a gather doesn't constitute the beginning of a shot.

He did start his shooting motion. By rule the official was wrong IMO.

Not according to the guy who counts.

This thread will get about 100 posts before it is over.

My point is that Kellogg is wrong because the NCAA rule is the same as the NBA rule. This would have been a shooting foul in the NBA and should even be one under NFHS rules.

He was right. There is no continuation under NCAA rules. Some people try to introduce continuation by using the term "gather" But, by rule, all we have is continuous motion. which is a little less generous..if you follow the rules.

I still think Kellogg was trying to say that the two rule sets are a complete 180 from each other.

Definitions
 

NBA Rule 4, Section X

The act of shooting starts when, in the official’s judgment, the player has started his shooting motion and continues until the shooting motion ceases and he returns to a normal floor position.

NBA Comments on the Rules, 4C

A defensive player is not permitted to move into the path of an offensive player once he has started his upward motion with the ball to attempt a field goal or pass.

=========================


NCAA 4-73-3, 4 & 7

Art. 3. The try shall start when the player begins the motion that habitually precedes the release of the ball on a try...
Art. 4. A try shall end when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead.
Art. 7. An airborne shooter, who is fouled by an opponent, while in the air but after the ball is released shall be considered to be in the act of shooting until that airborne player returns to the floor.

NCAA 4-14

Continuous motion applies to a try for field goal or free throw, but shall have no significance unless there is a foul by the defense during the interval that begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap
and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.

========================

NFHS 4-41-1, 3 & 4

ART. 1 The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter
ART. 3 The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.
ART. 4 The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor or when the ball becomes dead.

NFHS 4-11-2
If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.

Looking the the NBA rule posted by JetMet, it looks like they're closer than I had thought, at least as printed. Looks like even the NBA rule requires upward motion. Of course, what they really call is a bit more generous allowing from a "gather" (aka continuation).

Ohio St - Iowa St video request
 

Charge at 1:34 or so 2nd half.

For the record this is a RA foul or close to the RA foul. The issue is whether the OSU player Craft was heal was on or over the RA.

Peace

Ohio state vs Iowa state
 

I might have missed it but where was the foul commited against Aaron Craft at 2:35 o f fourth quarter. It became a 3 point play !!

His heel was definitely over the RA but was not touching the line. Not sure is that matters or not.

Heels above the RA = Standing in the RA

Hmm, that doesn't sound right. Got a rules reference? In FIBA, the defender has to have both feet completely inside the semi-circle. If they are touching the SC in any way, they are considered "out".

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

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

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.

http://i48.tinypic.com/iqkdpk.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/2z3xd86.png
http://i45.tinypic.com/33kw51z.png

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

Upward motion, as it relates to the act of shooting, is only important when the defense is taking a foul on the perimeter (and the shot/game clock is not about to expire)...in this case, the offensive player would have to started his upward motion with the ball. Also, when an offensive player is doing a rip move in an attempt to get a shooting foul (a go to move for Kevin Durant), it's not a shooting foul if the contact is during the side-to-side motion, but a shooting foul if the contact occurs on the upward portion.

Those specific special situations aside, upward motion only deals with block/charge plays and not with being in the act of shooting. If the player gathers the ball, gets fouled, doesn't put the ball back on the floor, and shoots the ball...and assuming he doesn't put the shot up as an afterthought (and this would have to be Stevie Wonder clear)...then count the basket.

And that is ONLY in the NBA. That does not apply at any other level. They have to actually be in the shooting motion at the time of the foul to be in the act of shooting.

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

And then many would argue that what happened between the gather and the ball being released is the habitual motion that precedes the shot. You have your interpretation on these type of plays, and other people have theirs. To the play in question, I'd easily have in the act of shooting.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

Don't Ask My Ex Wife, Or The Coaches That I Work Games For ...
 

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

First off, there's no problem with you posting here even if you don't officiate. It's just the presumption seeing as...well this is a board for sports officials and related topics. Keep respectful and you'll be just fine.

The NBA does call this different because the rule is different.

Under NFHS (high school) and NCAA rules, a defender is late if he gets his position after the defender is airborne. In the NBA, a defender is late if he gets his position after the offensive player has started his upward motion with the ball. Even with the defender being required to be there half a beat earlier, fans and commentators still scream about "defenders running under players" or changing to rule to whatever even on bang bang players that are correctly called charges. And the same arguments that you're saying right here are still brought up by commentators in NBA games.

When you said "the rules say this...." even though the rules do not read that way, you were kinda claiming to have more knowledge.

However, I do see your point. The officials who responded to you actually agreed with you that it is a block....but they kept pointing out that the reasons you were giving were not valid ones (time/distance not given, moving the foot, being "set", etc.). For these guys, the process is as important as the final call.

It would have helped you if JRut had posted the rule covering the situation that we were talking about, which confused both you and me. He posted the rule about off-ball defenders getting LGP, which has little to do with the Craft play.

I have heard of boards where all they do is complain about officiating (and pretty much everything else) -- they are called fan forums.

I hope you stay here and get to learn!

Yeah well I guess I am more of a fan than anything truth be told ;)

I'm glad to better understand the rule. My intent wasn't to act more knowledgable but rather get people to explain why I it didn't make sense to me.

It's still weird. As a player I would have never thought this. There are many times that I have picked up my dribble in full stride towards the basket and someone has step in front. In one particular instance, I was driving hard to the basket baseline and was going in for a dunk. A shorter defender slide in (there was no restricted area back then but if there was, they'd definitely have been out of it). If I recall correctly, they where square with me, had their feet on the ground, and there before I was airborne. I couldn't avoid the collision. By the time I processed mentally that there was someone in front of me, I was already in the act of exploding up off one leg and my momentum just took me into them. I tried to avoid it but all i could do was turn my side into them. He took the worst of it but i definitely remember landing hard on my back. It was called a blocking foul. But by these rules, it should have been a charge. And it's just hard to get my head wrapped that.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yeah, that could've been a charge on your part. It could've also been a blocking foul (if the defender was moving forward at the time of the contact, or if one of his feet wasn't on the floor before you went airborne).

As a player, you're going to see things differently than the officials see them.

That's why the officials get paid the mediocre bucks.

Or, the official could have kicked it. As we've seen from the plays Adams put out earlier this year, it does happen.

Actually you did claim to have knowledge of the subject. Maybe not more knowledge as I would have no other way to make that determination other than what you are stating on this topic.

And yes this a board of sports officials and primarily those that work the sport in which you posted this topic.

And we have had many non-officials over the years, nothing wrong with posting. But you are not debating these issues with people that do not have access to the actual books these games are governed by.


I want the game to reward good defense. I want the game to reward a player that can do different things. I think there should be a balance between the two. And yes the RA is to prevent guys from constantly running into people under the basket, but it also says to the offense you have only a small area to get that consideration. Otherwise you need to not run willy-nilly into anyone just because they are in your way, just like other parts of the court. And that is great that the NBA calls it differently, but that does not necessarily influence what other levels do. The NBA has a different athlete that has been playing the game for a longer time and the public that is watching is paying more money. High School or NCAA are dealing with players that may never play above their level. Who cares about all of that, that is the case in every single sport where the pros have a different rules than the lower amateur levels.

If they were going to change this, they would have done so a long time ago. These plays happen all the time and nothing has change for years. It has been the same basic rule since I started almost 20 years ago. The only thing that changed was the NCAA rule on the RA. They are not going to take away defense or the ability to play it if an offensive player cannot make another type of play. Actually you are the only person I have ever heard complain about this part of the game and one of the reasons nothing in this area will change.

Peace