Wichita State-Louisville block (Armstead 1st half)
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aRaEXIU4mVY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I guess it might have been for #2's arm across the front of the shooter on the jump stop but there really isn't much there.

Two things. This was the one call I though they missed for sure, should have passed on this. Also, if the other was a continuation, why wasn't this one?

Different official made the call. ;)

Peace

I know. So normal shooting motion varies on official to official. If the other one was shouldn't this one be also? In my opinion either both were or both weren't.

This is really hard for you to understand? Two different officials, with two different experiences or understandings of what they saw. I am really not trying to be crass by saying this, but you really have no idea why two different officials in the same game would rule on something different?

Peace

Yes I understand. If the other player was in his shooting motion so was this this guy.

Once again, two different officials. Sounds pretty simple to me. And I not sure the other official saw the first play.

Peace

One of John Adam' absolutes for NCAA-M is that a foul should be called anytime a defender puts two hands on a ball handler. It is clear from the preliminary mechanic given that this is exactly why the official saw.

See my response to CR as to why this is called in NCAA-M. Not a continuation play because foul occured when ball handler was in the air for his jump stop. At that time, he hadnt started his shooting motion.

That may be but it is contrary to the advantage philosophy as it was brushing contact at most and took away a bucket from the offended team. Sort of like the two bodies down philosophy, it needs to be used intelligently and I don't think it was in that case.

As far as Adam's is concerned, there is no room for advantage/disadvantage or judgement, hence the term absolute. In his eyes, every time the defender puts two hands on the ball handler it has to be a foul, no questions asked.

Cam - for conversation purposes only, I don't think we can be "intelligent", regarding absolutes. Whether you think there was any disadvantage put on the dribbler on that play, that is a whistle for "two hands", just like John Adams wants...now if you wanna debate if it is a continous motion play, I will agree it is.....

Either you're completely misunderstanding Adams, or Adams hasn't read the rule book.

The third option, I suppose, is that Adams only thinks this way when it concerns two hands on the ball handler, and advantage/disadvantage still applies to every other contact situation.

As Camron indicates, this is the problem with absolutes. The absolute wasn't developed for this type of play. Even a delay of half a second would have allowed this play to finish without a whistle. If Adams wants this called, so be it, but I wouldn't.

I honestly think the "absolute" part was to make officials get over the idea of just looking at this from and advantage/disadvantage standpoint. I also agree that there is some room for usage of advantage/disadvantage, it is just not and excuse to pass on obvious fouls. Also RSBQ is used in Adam's philosophy so that requires judgment to decide when those things take place.

Peace

RSBQ is just another way of delineating exactly what "advantage" looks like.

Just food for thought here. Does the defense even get two hands on the offense here? It is close, but it looks like they aren't on him at the same time. Hard to tell though.

I agree, but he used RSBQ with the "absolutes" portion of that presentation. At least it was used when it came to handchecking which is what "two hands" was considered under that philosophy.

Peace

Fair enough. I get that handchecking has a much lower standard for determining advantage. It's harder to tell, so the threshold is lower; that makes sense to me.

The problem, though, with calling them absolutes, is the same problem we get with attempts at "zero tolerance" (regardless of what we are refusing to tolerate). Remove discretion, and you get all sorts of unfair decisions: like this call (IMO, of course).

It's the coaches who want 2 hands called every time. Adams is just telling us to enforce it like the rules committee wants it called.

We can never move away from some discretion on contact and fouls. There is always something to decide. I think all Adams wanted to do is to give us something rules and philosophy based to make these calls as opposed to passing like we would always do previous to his coming to the coordinator position.

Peace

Jeff, based on the meetings I have attended and what I have heard from clinicians at camps, assignment guys, and D1 officials, this isnt the case with Adam's mandate that 2 hands on the ball handler be called every time. It has always been presented to me and been my understanding that the reason he went so far as to call this an absolute is to take out any judgement as far as rsbq on this type of play. He really wants this called every time. This is different than some of the other types of plays that are frequently on his video updates and seem to be described in a different tone. I am not arguing this is the best way to address this type of play, I am just saying it seems this is the way that Adam's wants these plays called.

And the context of the situations being addressed was perimeter play or post of play. I don't think he ever intended it apply to a situation where the "offended' player was about to start his shooting motion for an easy shot but for a defender happening to brush him with two hands as he went by....killing the easy shot.

And even if he meant ABSOLUTE for all situations, this just exposes the downside of absolutes. When you make it absolute, you're going to have unintended consequences. In this case, it penalized the shooter. Absolutes are certainly always defensible when applied but they are often bad ideas.