YSU at UMass men's basketball game video. (Clip Added)
 

My beloved Youngstown State University Penguins men's basketball team went down to their first lost of the season to UMass yesterday. I knew they were going to get beat.

I was watching Sports Center earlier this evening that the No. 3 Play of the day was a dunk by a UMass player over a YSU player. I would like to ask our video gurus to post the video if they can find it.

And then, I would like to know, how this dunk was not a PC.

MTD, Sr.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/L3uorwKh_qw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm with you, Mr. YSU
 

Sure looked like a PC to me. Also didn't like the way he stood over and glared down at the defender. Possibly a T under NFHS guidelines? Could at least have shown a little class and helped him up.

Text book block under the new rules. Defender moved after A1 began upward motion. If I get the block, I'm also getting the taunt by A1 afterwards.

Correct, the defender had not gained LGP by the time the offensive player began the motion preceding the release of the ball. That said, I don't see how the defender fouled the offensive player at all (other than not having Legal Position). The defender got knocked down, the offensive player landed cleanly. I can agree with a no-call here.

I am hopefully getting the T for taunting. Maybe even two T's as it looks like White 0 also comes over and rubs it in.

Defender has to get an initial legal guarding position before the player starts his upward motion with his hands/arms to shoot or pass the ball.

I can see this being a block under the new NCAAM guidelines. I can also see the T for the post-dunk taunt. I can't see it being a no-call. This is too much contact to be a no-call.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I am saying calling the defender for a block just because he didn't have LGP would be a weak call. Sure if both players went to the floor or the offensive player missed the shot then call a block, but I don't see how the defender disadvantaged the offensive player.

Just clearing up your use of "motion preceding the release of the ball" as the deciding point between being late or in time. Motions that precede the try is verbiage that is more dealing with being in the act of shooting.

My guess is they didn't go with the block because of score and time. Regardless, they should have had a T for taunting afterwards.

Isn't the defensive player standing there the whole time? Starting at :27, I'm not sure what else a guy would have to do to be in LGP.

He slides over as the shooter goes airborne. And once again, the rule in the NCAA is different then high school. I would have likely had a block if I was going to call anything at the high school level as the defender was moving over on an airborne shooter.

Peace

If you don't call a block on a defender who does not have LGP, then whom do you call a block on?

That isn't what he said.

No matter what call was made in this case somebody would be upset, and have reason to be. It is that close.

What isn't "close" is the taunting. You have to nip that in the bud in order to prevent possible retaliation later. Whether it's late in the game or not, a fight can break out any time.

I am not so sure about the taunting. There is emotion in the game and if I dunk on someone and that guy is under you, what else do you expect him to do? He is going to look at him. I can see why that was not called in that situation.

Peace

I'm not sure what this guy's face looked like, but his teammate had no reason to do the same, though.

On that note, though, looking down at a guy after the play is one thing, but making a face that is clearly meant as "LOL... you got poster-ized" is another. I mean, it would be no surprise if it ticked off the defender, and his teammates, and thus ended up in some type of altercation.

This defender had LGP long before the collision....several steps worth. His problem what that he, from an LGP, slid over after the shooter went airborne making it a block. This would be a block in any year's version of the rules. Had he not moved and still got hit, it would have been a PC.

Is the movement you see towards the shooter, or lateral? Doesn't a defender have the right to move laterally and still maintain LGP?

In HS, not after A1 goes airborne.

In NCAA-Men (don't know about Women's), not after A1 begins upward motion with the ball.

As BNR said...

Which means, that in this case, it would be a block on both accounts since he moved laterally after the shooter was airborne....and also towards the shooter in my opinion.

Where does it says the defender may not continue to move laterally after the offensive player is airborne?

You have to give the airborne player a spot to come down unless you get there before s/he left the floor (HS or gathered NCAAM)

This makes it sound like a defender who has legal guarding position and is legally moving to maintain it must immediately stop moving when the offensive player becomes airborne. Such is not the case.

Let's not overthink these, folks.

As I said, emotion is apart of the game. Looking down at someone is not in itself is not taunting. Saying something to the opponent or making an unnecessary movment towards an opponent I could see. This to me looks like a player dunked on a player and had him under him. I expect him to look at him at some point. This does not look unusual or unexpected. But that is why they call it judgment.

Peace

In the clip, though, wouldn't you say that B1 is already in the path of A1 with LGP before the try attempt starts? B1 certainly does move a couple of feet laterally after A1's try begins. Is any movement laterally acceptable? What if B1 just slides one foot a few inches over? Block or charge?

Yes, but B1 also has to maintain LGP until A1 returns to the floor. Shifting laterally while A1 is airborne isn't maintaining LGP. If it was, shooters would be getting low-bridged with no consequences all game long.


This would be where judgment comes into play.

Yeah, I agree. Which is why I'm not saying anything for certain regarding the shooter. I would have had to be in position to see his face to determine his intent by looking. I'm more thinking about the shooter's teammate who looked down at the defender.

In all, I'd have to be there to hear/see exactly what happened. This video alone doesn't prove if a tech should have been given out or not.

After watching the clip three times, I don't care if it was YSU doing the dunking: That play is a CHARGE! This is a classic example of an illness that has been permeating in high school and college for at least fifteen years of going with the WOW! factor rather than officiating the play.

That is my two cents from a curmudgeonly bald old geezer. :p

MTD, Sr.

It can be. Situation: B1 is in a legal guarding position where airborne A1 would contact his left shoulder. B1 shifts slightly to his left. A1 now makes contact with B1's right shoulder. Charge on A1.

Again, that's where judgment comes into play. Your definition of "slightly" is going to be different from mine, which will be different from someone else's. However, if A1 is airborne and would've contacted B1's left shoulder but B1 moves and the contact is on his/her right shoulder some would consider that more than "slight" movement. That's shoulder-width movement.

JAR's interp would eventually get him fired from a college staff.

Can't envision this as anything other than a block.

He's there stationary. Offensive player about to make contact. He moves one foot absolutely perpendicular to the path of the offensive player and this makes it a block? Why?

After he's airborne? If he's not already in the path before the opponent is airborne, this is a blocking foul (I wouldn't consider a shoulder as being in the path)...unless something is getting lost in translation here.

He already was in the path. I'm not talking about an extended shoulder. I'm just saying he doesn't have to be perfectly centered to have legal position.

Try this: Contact would have been on his left pectoral muscle had he remained stationary. But he moves laterally so now the contact is on the right pectoral muscle instead. This movement does not make it a block.

I disagree. If B1's movement is such that it doesn't change anything other than the exact point where they take the contact but contact would have occurred even if B1 didn't move laterlly, then B1 had LGP all the time is is legal. B1 is only prohibited from moving INTO the path, not from moving within the path.

No one is saying a defender has to be perfectly centered to have LGP and there's nothing in the rules which says that either. What APG and I are saying is a defender can't shift position on an opponent who is airborne.

Where does it actually say they can't shift position? I only find that they can't move into the path on an opponent that is airborne. If they shift form a position in the path to another position that is in the path they have not violated any rule I can find.

So we're supposed to judge whether B1 has moved into or within the path of A1 while A1 is airborne?

1. Do you believe that's the intent of the rule as it concerns an airborne player?
2. Is that how you've called it in the past?

Yes. yes. Yes.

imo, of course.

I believe I left something out of my question: So we're supposed to judge whether B1 has moved a into or within the path of A1 while A1 is airborne AND if it was within but not into A1's path call the play a PC foul?

5 defenders on the court did not have LGP. Not having LGP by itself is not a foul.

I was already assuming that part, at least mostly. It could be a no call. ;) It can't (or shouldn't) be a block.

Judging it in practice (where exactly is A1 going and would contact have been made if B1 was "frozen" at the time A1 left the ground (NCAAW) or gathered (NCAAM)?) is more difficult than discussing it in theory, though (especially since the path can change after the gather in NCAAM -- the path is set once a player is in the air as in NCAAW).

Yes to all of the Q's.

If B1 was legally A1's path before and was still in A1's path as A1 became airborne, then B1 has LGP. It is a PC regardless of whether B1 moves a little more or not. B1 has met the requirements of LGP.

I am sure the YSU football coach would want an ejection....complain at halftime calling UMASS unsportsmanlike and cheap....repeat at end of game...and next day....pick up a technical during the game, etc.:):):)

Go Bison!!

I said it first. Camron said it better.