Vid request-Uconn BC First half 1:55 (Clip Added)

[rockyroad]

It is because of blown calls like this one, and the refusal of officials such as Mr. Rutledge to make a call on plays like this one, that we have such strong directives coming down from the NCAA.

And of course, none of us have ever worked anything even remotely close to the level of ball that takes place in that one certain area of the country where things are done in the only correct way.

Oh well.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It is because of blown calls like this one, and the refusal of officials such as Mr. Rutledge to make a call on plays like this one, that we have such strong directives coming down from the NCAA.

I am just curious as to how you think a call (correct or incorrect) or non-call on this type of play is in any way remotely related to the "strong" directives coming from the NCAA on the men's side? Perhaps the NCAA-W directives are different (I wouldn't know), but this type of play has nothing to do with the directives on the men's side. Your statement above is pure hyperbole.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am just curious as to how you think a call (correct or incorrect) or non-call on this type of play is in any way remotely related to the "strong" directives coming from the NCAA on the men's side? Perhaps the NCAA-W directives are different (I wouldn't know), but this type of play has nothing to do with the directives on the men's side. Your statement above is pure hyperbole.

He doesn't know because he does not work Men's College ball. And if anything if this was about the directives from the NCAA Men's side, this was properly called. After all there was contact with a dribbler and you could make a case that the contact was illegal on the defender's part based on the "Freedom of Movement" philosophy. But I do not think RSBQ was affected by the defender and why I think at most this is a no-call.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He doesn't know because he does not work Men's College ball. And if anything if this was about the directives from the NCAA Men's side, this was properly called. After all there was contact with a dribbler and you could make a case that the contact was illegal on the defender's part based on the "Freedom of Movement" philosophy. But I do not think RSBQ was affected by the defender and why I think at most this is a no-call.

Peace

If your understanding of the directives and freedom of movement expressed here were on target the defenders in your game might as well just wait on their end of the court for the other team to take an open layup.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If your understanding of the directives and freedom of movement expressed here were on target the defenders in your game might as well just wait on their end of the court for the other team to take an open layup.

In our staff meeting one one ever talked about off hands of the dribbler. But that being said, I have called many fouls with the off hand of the dribbler in my career and I can think of just last year being something I called multiple times. Unless you can remind me of one, I do not recall a single play in the video showing such a call where the dribbler should be called for a play like this one referenced. And I have watched the video about 3 times and the freedom of movement stuff is also not new to this year. This stuff has been in place ever since John Adams took over as the Supervisor of the NCAA. And he in some ways has been preaching this stuff before he got in that post and I went to his camps on about 3 different occasions. Maybe you know better than everyone, but I would like the reference to the video. I will look at the video again, but I doubt I will see this play or kind of play referenced as a foul on the dribbler.

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In our staff meeting one one ever talked about off hands of the dribbler. But that being said, I have called many fouls with the off hand of the dribbler in my career and I can think of just last year being something I called multiple times. Unless you can remind me of one, I do not recall a single play in the video showing such a call where the dribbler should be called for a play like this one referenced. And I have watched the video about 3 times and the freedom of movement stuff is also not new to this year. This stuff has been in place ever since John Adams took over as the Supervisor of the NCAA. And he in some ways has been preaching this stuff before he got in that post and I went to his camps on about 3 different occasions. Maybe you know better than everyone, but I would like the reference to the video. I will look at the video again, but I doubt I will see this play or kind of play referenced as a foul on the dribbler.

Peace

Jrut, what did the defender do wrong?
He didn't move into the ball handler. He didn't touch the ball handler with either hand. He moved laterally to maintain position. The ball handler never got head or shoulders or anything beyond the defender. If you want to no call this, I could buy into that as there was potentially no advantage gained, but I just can't see a foul on the defender. IMO, this is exactly what the directives are to encourage, actual defense by moving the feet and staying in front without using the hands all of the time. At least answer what the defender did to deserve a foul call. Thanks.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If your understanding of the directives and freedom of movement expressed here were on target the defenders in your game might as well just wait on their end of the court for the other team to take an open layup.

I'll second this motion.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am just curious as to how you think a call (correct or incorrect) or non-call on this type of play is in any way remotely related to the "strong" directives coming from the NCAA on the men's side? Perhaps the NCAA-W directives are different (I wouldn't know), but this type of play has nothing to do with the directives on the men's side. Your statement above is pure hyperbole.

Contact on/by the ball handler is not one of the directives from the NCAA???

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Contact on/by the ball handler is not one of the directives from the NCAA???

Show us where this play is in the video? Or show the reference in the rulebook to this kind of action. You say it is there, well I am from Missouri.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Show us where this play is in the video? Or show the reference in the rulebook to this kind of action. You say it is there, well I am from Missouri.

Peace

What???

Have you been drinking or something?

The play posted was absolutely contact by/on a ballhandler.

References in the rulebook to contact on/by a ballhandler?? Uhmmm, there are quite a few.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

What???

Have you been drinking or something?

The play posted was absolutely contact by/on a ballhandler.

References in the rulebook to contact on/by a ballhandler?? Uhmmm, there are quite a few.

Why was it called against the defender? It was absolutely a foul on the ball handler right?

Oh and show them please? Remember there are two different rulebooks now.

Peace

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Contact on/by the ball handler is not one of the directives from the NCAA???

This play is a block/charge play. It is not a hand checking or freedom of movement play. This is not the type of play that lead to the directive on the NCAA-M side.

We can argue all day whether or not the right call was made. I wasn't addressing that issue at all. But it is ridiculous to suggest that this type of play and the possibility that it wasn't called correctly have anything at all to do with the NCAA-M directive.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am just curious as to how you think a call (correct or incorrect) or non-call on this type of play is in any way remotely related to the "strong" directives coming from the NCAA on the men's side? Perhaps the NCAA-W directives are different (I wouldn't know), but this type of play has nothing to do with the directives on the men's side. Your statement above is pure hyperbole.

Just because I felt left out…

On the NCAAW side there would be a call here. I’m not going to jump into the debate on what the call would/should be but yes, NCAAW would expect a whistle on this play.