Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Way to show off, but ummmm, how come you don't have the 3D version?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

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]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Does anybody have John Adam's email address.

MTD, Sr.

Here you go:

[email protected]

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Here you go:

[email protected]

"Thank you for being a fan of college basketball"

Mark, don't be shocked if he answers.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

"thank you for being a fan of college basketball" :d

mark, don't be shocked if he answers.

:d

[JetMetFan]

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]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

.... 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.