video request (Iowa/ISU) (Clip Added)

[Raymond]

9:50 of 2nd half. PC called on Iowa; from Hooters it looked like upward motion play.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

9:50 of 2nd half. PC called on Iowa; from Hooters it looked like upward motion play.

And you expect us to believe you saw the play at all?

[rlarry]

All plays at Hooter's look like upward motion. That's their business model

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rlarry

All plays at Hooter's look like upward motion. That's their business model

Mark Padgett? Why are you posting under rlarry's user name?

[JetMetFan]

Here's the non-Hooters view of the play...

[HawkeyeCubP]

Huh. I liked the call while watching it last night. Looks like it technically should've been a block.

[OKREF]

I don't see how any set of rules says that isn't a PC. It looks like he started his upward motion, and technically the official could have called a block and been right by the book.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I don't see how any set of rules says that isn't a PC. It looks like he started his upward motion, and technically the official could have called a block and been right by the book.

NCAA-M says it's a block.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

NCAA-M says it's a block.

I know it does, but man that's a tough block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I know it does, but man that's a tough block.

{fanboy rant}

Are you kidding me? That's an easy block, how could that official miss that call from the perfect position?! This is horrible! That cost the Hawkeyes the game!

{/fanboy rant}

[Camron Rust]

While, by NCAA-M, that is a block, I do not like it. This play is a perfect example of a defender doing a pretty good job of cutting off the path to the basket but getting penalized for it. In my opinion, with respect to the new rule, he was 1/2 a step from making it in time. He stepped forward and got one foot down before the shooter started up but didn't get the 2nd foot down until the shooter was moving up. The shooter still had plenty of time to change directions. They've made it practically impossible to guard the basket against drives.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While, by NCAA-M, that is a block, I do not like it. This play is a perfect example of a defender doing a pretty good job of cutting off the path to the basket but getting penalized for it. In my opinion, with respect to the new rule, he was 1/2 a step from making it in time. He stepped forward and got one foot down before the shooter started up but didn't get the 2nd foot down until the shooter was moving up. The shooter still had plenty of time to change directions. They've made it practically impossible to guard the basket against drives.

Agreed. By rule it was probably a block, but the rule is terrible. I would be all in favor of changing it back.

If the defender gets in position too early to take the charge, the driving player simply dishes the ball to whoever the secondary defender was guarding previously.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He stepped forward and got one foot down before the shooter started up but didn't get the 2nd foot down until the shooter was moving up.

At regular speed, I've got a player control foul. In slow motion, I've also got a player control foul. I believe that the defender got his right foot down before the offensive player became airborne.

[brainbrian]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I believe that the defender got his right foot down before the offensive player became airborne.

The rule is not based on when the player goes airborne, it's based on when he begins his upward shooting motion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Agreed. By rule it was probably a block, but the rule is terrible. I would be all in favor of changing it back.

If the defender gets in position too early to take the charge, the driving player simply dishes the ball to whoever the secondary defender was guarding previously.

Agreed. I don't think there was anything wrong with the rule before they jacked it up.