Video Request: WSU vs OSU (Video Added)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

PC1: 2nd:18:30....if they were consistent with the other applications of the elbow/FF1 rule that we've seen, this would have been a FF1. I don't like that conclusion and actually prefer it as they called it...but it was not consistent.

RA Block @ 2nd:7:30. PC...he gained LGP outside of RA and moved to maintain it and ended up on the RA. If you only look where he is at the time of contact, you'd have an RA block. However, the RA rules are based on initial LGP, not position at the time of contact. His final position was also obtained before the shooter left the floor.

EDIT: More on this one...at about 15.5 seconds into the slow-mo replay, you can see that the defender is facing the dribbler, both feet on the floor (defender's shoes have the red trim, offense shoes are all black), and the dribbler is coming right at him (in the dribbler's path) and the defender is about 1 foot outside the RA. LGP obtained. At about 16 seconds on the slo-mo, he stepped to the right to maintain LGP but stepped into the RA with his right foot, he then slid his left foot in to a point also in the RA. Then the shooter left the floor. LGP Maintained.

OOB @ 2nd:4:02... inconclusive. #22's head was blocking what needed to be seen in the first angle and the other angle really didn't show it clearly enough either.

PC @ 2nd:3:01. A bit of exaggeration. Contact, yes, a bit of a arm sweep, yes. But it was not nearly enough to have caused #3 to get knocked to the floor. I'd not call it for that reason alone. #3 took himself out of the play more then he got pushed out of the play.

If you look at the last angle they show, it sure looks like the players foot has not touched down prior to him catching the pass. Since he has not touched down at all in the court he has never established legal floor position, thus the violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

If you look at the last angle they show, it sure looks like the players foot has not touched down prior to him catching the pass. Since he has not touched down at all in the court he has never established legal guarding position, thus the violation.

You need legal guarding position on this play...to catch a pass from a teamamte? I guess i need to reread my rulebook.

His forward foot is not in question. It is certainly in the air. The question is his rear foot. It was on the floor but was it inbounds or out? That is what is inconclusive on these replays. If in, legal. If out, illegal.

EDIT: I've now gone back and read your other post. Methinks you might want to reread the section of the rulebook where it defines player location. If you're calling plays like you describe above, you're not getting them correct. Simply put, you are where you are touching. Period. If you're touching two areas at once there is a priority to determine which area you're in. There is no 2-feet down requirement as far as player location goes (with one exception and it isn't related to this discussion.)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You need legal guarding position on this play...to catch a pass from a teamamte? I guess i need to reread my rulebook.

His forward foot is not in question. It is certainly in the air. The question is his rear foot. It was on the floor but was it inbounds or out? That is what is inconclusive on these replays. If in, legal. If out, illegal.

EDIT: I've now gone back and read your other post. Methinks you might want to reread the section of the rulebook where it defines player location. If you're calling plays like you describe above, you're not getting them correct. Simply put, you are where you are touching. Period. If you're touching two areas at once there is a priority to determine which area you're in. There is no 2-feet down requirement as far as player location goes (with one exception and it isn't related to this discussion.)

I never said there was a 2 feet down requirement. What I said is that the angle that you need to look at is that back angle. Three things need to be looked at. When does he touch the ball. Where is the left foot when he touches the ball, and then where is the right foot. In my opinion, when he touches the ball the left (front foot), has not touched down yet when he touches the ball. This means this foot could not be used to establish position on the floor, since the last position it was touching was OOB. The next issue is the rear foot. Only after looking at the first two does this really matter. I have to give the official the benefit of the doubt on this as he was right there when the call was made.

I can see where you think I mean the 2 foot down rule was implied. It isn't. I was simply stating that the front foot has never established any position on the play which was the impression I got that others were saying.

[zm1283]

I don't have a problem with either RA play.

The OOB play bothers me because the Trail was right on top of that, but we see obvious travels no-called all the time. I know there's a difference, but if we're going to call this OOB violation, call more travels.

The PC foul on WSU with the elbow was a flop. I would no-call it because the OSU player took a dive.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I don't have a problem with either RA play.

The OOB play bothers me because the Trail was right on top of that, but we see obvious travels no-called all the time. I know there's a difference, but if we're going to call this OOB violation, call more travels.

The PC foul on WSU with the elbow was a flop. I would no-call it because the OSU player took a dive.

And out of bounds call does not take in the multiple factors that a travel might or even PC foul you described as a flop. Out of bounds calls with someone stepping on the line are a little more obvious and always will be.

Peace