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

[Sharpshooternes]

Is this the sort of block that the NCAA wants? What do you all have at the HS level. Too me this is great defense and exactly what the "new rule" was trying to get players to do: hands off and move your feet.
Thoughts?

[APG]

PC at high school level. Should have been here as well...I can't see what the defender did to lose LGP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

PC at high school level. Should have been here as well...I can't see what the defender did to lose LGP.

Agree. PC, and not really that close.

And given the way the T (who had primary coverage on the play) started walking towards the other end, it seems he was expecting a PC call too.

[BillyMac]

When most people hear, "player control foul", they think "charge". This is a good example of a player control foul that is not a "charge", but a "push" (with the left arm). Plus, I don't think that you forfeit your "right" to be illegally pushed, by a player in control of the ball, by not having legal guarding position.

[SWMOzebra]

It seems clear from the video that the T is looking directly at this play and it appears to be in his PCA (though admittedly headed toward C). I can't help but wonder why he didn't put a whistle on this?

[JRutledge]

I do not have anything on the defender for sure. I probably do not have a PC foul either at any level either. The extended arm does not appear to be the reason their is separation, it looks like the momentum of the players is what caused the separation, not an illegal action. Play on IMO.

Peace

[j51969]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

When most people hear, "player control foul", they think "charge". This is a good example of a player control foul that is not a "charge", but a "push" (with the left arm). Plus, I don't think that you forfeit your "right" to be illegally pushed, by a player in control of the ball, by not having legal guarding position.

IMO,

The arm extension by the offensive player created the space. I completely agree with B-MAC, and would add this type of seperation doesn't get called enough. The added emphasis on good defense makes this play stand out even more.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not have anything on the defender for sure. I probably do not have a PC foul either at any level either. The extended arm does not appear to be the reason their is separation, it looks like the momentum of the players is what caused the separation, not an illegal action. Play on IMO.

Peace

His momentum was towards the C and the shove sent him towards the endline. :/

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sometimes I wonder if you actually watch these videos before commenting on them. His momentum was towards the C and the shove sent him towards the endline. :/

I can see you have never seen a player extend their arm and not be the reason a player was separated from contact. And this did not seem like the movement of the defender was caused by the arm extension. And someone that does football, I see this kind of movement all the time with a receiver and secondary player going after a pass. I am not convinced that this was all based on the arm, but based off on the fact the ball handler stopped his momentum and moved in another direction and then as expected a defender moving backwards is not going to just stop on a dime. I guess you call a foul every single time an arm is extended by a dribbler too.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not have anything on the defender for sure. I probably do not have a PC foul either at any level either. The extended arm does not appear to be the reason their is separation, it looks like the momentum of the players is what caused the separation, not an illegal action. Play on IMO.

Peace

Let's see...the defender is moving toward the far sideline. Dribbler sticks forearm in defenders stomach and shoves him, changing defenders direction to toward the endline.

But there is no illegal contact there??? That shove did not cause the separation???

Good grief.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Let's see...the defender is moving toward the far sideline. Dribbler sticks forearm in defenders stomach and shoves him, changing defenders direction to toward the endline.

But there is no illegal contact there??? That shove did not cause the separation???

Good grief.

Well let us see. The official on the game called a foul on the defender, not the offensive player. So whatever he saw, he clearly did not think it was a foul on the action with the arm. Now that is debatable as to why this play was asked for. And when I saw the play live, I felt nothing should have been called. Sorry, that you do not see the plays like this I see all the time. And even with the new directives I still see no foul. There is contact in basketball. And there is certainly contact in men's or boy's basketball.

Peace

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well let us see. The official on the game called a foul on the defender, not the offensive player. So whatever he saw, he clearly did not think it was a foul on the action with the arm. Now that is debatable as to why this play was asked for. And when I saw the play live, I felt nothing should have been called. Sorry, that you do not see the plays like this I see all the time. And even with the new directives I still see no foul. There is contact in basketball. And there is certainly contact in men's or boy's basketball.

Peace

You all just don't have the experience and perspective that JRut has.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

You all just don't have the experience and perspective that JRut has.

If you have not seen that play many times in different forms, then NO YOU DO NOT have the experience. That is why we get paid the big bucks.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you have not seen that play many times in different forms, then NO YOU DO NOT have the experience. That is why we get paid the big bucks.

Peace

And yet you still get it wrong. Being confident about your mistakes doesn't make them correct.