The Official Forum
Page 7 of 8 « First 56 7 8
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/97175-kansas-v-texas-close-block-charge-play.html)

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 921089)
Rule 4-23
ART. 5... Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.

I wouldn't treat the player receiving the ball as "an opponent with the ball", as in Article 4... where time and distance are not factors. By the time he caught and gathered the ball he had no chance to do anything with it (dribble, shoot, pass, or just stop with it), as the defender was less than two steps away.

Perhaps if the defender was within the offensive player's line of sight, then you can say the offensive player had enough of a chance to avoid contact. But since the offensive player was looking back and up at the pass, I would say without reservation that the defender was at fault for the contact.

Bryan:

First full disclosure: My mother graduated from Kansas and I am a Kansas fan, but people in the Forum will tell you I am always unbiased when it comes to officiaing.

Once the Texas player had control of the ball, the Kansas defender had established a LGP. Time and distance does not matter in this play nor does it matter whether the Texas player did or not see the Kansas player. This is a classic Casebook Play for a charge.

MTD, Sr.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 921534)
We should enforce the rules, not twist them to what we see as fair. That said, if you are looking for fair, I don't understand how punishing the defense for anticipating the play and getting to a spot legally is fair either. Think about this ... If a teamate throws the ball out of bounds, then he would not be allowed to legally catch it. You don't ignore the out of bounds rule because it seems fair to let the player have a chance to catch the ball. Likewise, if a teamate throws him the ball in a way that leads him into a collision with a defender, that doesn't mean you ignore the rule on charging because it seems fair to let the player catch the ball.

+1

MTD, Sr.

MD Longhorn Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 923862)
Bryan:

First full disclosure: My mother graduated from Kansas and I am a Kansas fan, but people in the Forum will tell you I am always unbiased when it comes to officiaing.

Once the Texas player had control of the ball, the Kansas defender had established a LGP. Time and distance does not matter in this play nor does it matter whether the Texas player did or not see the Kansas player. This is a classic Casebook Play for a charge.

MTD, Sr.
I graduated from the University of Texas and fully admit I am likely biased in their favor... and this was a charge.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 923814)
Rule 4 Sec 17 Art 5 a thru d

John Adams should be ashamed of himself. NCAA R4-S17-A5d has absolutely nothing to do with this play. 99.99% of the time I will not question an official's judgement call except when it comes to Guarding/Screening (block/charge) because if one knows the rule and referees the defense, the chances of missing this call is almost zero.

I am glad I retired from college ball after Junior's first hear of officiating (20017-08) because this type of nonsense coming John Adam's inexcusable.

It is a good thing that I am a calm and reserved person and have never suffered from high blood pressure or I would have been taken to the emergency room before I finished this post.

MTD, Sr.

Welpe Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:32pm
Can somebody post verbatim what Adams had to say about this play (text is fine, don't need the rule)?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around how he can possibly justify saying 4-17-5 applies here.

Raymond Thu Feb 20, 2014 09:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 923872)
Can somebody post verbatim what Adams had to say about this play (text is fine, don't need the rule)?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around how he can possibly justify saying 4-17-5 applies here.
His only comments were that it was a correct call per 4-17-5.a-d.

Welpe Thu Feb 20, 2014 09:05pm
Hmm interesting yet puzzling. Wish he would have hashed this one out more.

He wasn't making these comments while visiting Colorado by chance, was he? :)

dahoopref Thu Feb 20, 2014 09:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 923872)
Can somebody post verbatim what Adams had to say about this play (text is fine, don't need the rule)?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around how he can possibly justify saying 4-17-5 applies here.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2XUPMDMTs0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Raymond Thu Feb 20, 2014 09:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 923897)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2XUPMDMTs0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Way to show off, but ummmm, how come you don't have the 3D version? :cool:

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 923897)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2XUPMDMTs0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Does anybody have John Adam's email address. It is time for basketball officials to address this gross misinterpretation of the rules. I am appalled that John Adams would make such a statement. I am appalled that a person in his position could be so ignorant for the rules and how they are applied. I have attended seminars that the late Edgar Cartotto had given on Block/Charge and John Adam's statements have to have him spinning in his grave.

MTD, Sr.

dahoopref Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 923907)
Does anybody have John Adam's email address.

MTD, Sr.
Here you go:

[email protected]

Raymond Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 923909)
Here you go:

[email protected]
"Thank you for being a fan of college basketball" :D

Mark, don't be shocked if he answers.

Adam Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by badnewsref (Post 923916)
"thank you for being a fan of college basketball" :d

mark, don't be shocked if he answers.
:d

JetMetFan Fri Feb 21, 2014 01:06am
Talk about your stereotypes of men not being talkers...

I don't think we've ever gotten one of these clips on the NCAAW side where the reason behind the interpretation wasn't explained...and explained again. To just say "this is a blocking foul because of 4-17-5" and not go into the possession aspect of the play creates more confusion. It also has an aspect of, "this is what we want called, deal with it."

Raymond Fri Feb 21, 2014 08:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 923932)
.... It also has an aspect of, "this is what we want called, deal with it."
That was my take on the video.

Of course, I was one of the few who thought it was a block in the first place, so maybe my intuition was talking to me.:cool:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48pm.
Page 7 of 8 « First 56 7 8
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1