Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm surprised anyone's trying.

Trying to fix it is a waste of time.

I'm fine with what he is doing. Some people (myself included) prefer to not just accept the status quo right away, and take longer to grasp why certain rules are the way they are.

BryanV21 has shown a willingness to learn and change his viewpoint in other threads (as well as this one) so I will give him some rope.

[ballgame99]

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact.

Bryan, there is only one ruleset where your interp holds water, but I don't think you've attained that lofty level.

[BryanV21]

My intention is to understand a rule entirely, not just accept what the right call is and move on to the next play. That could very well mean reading into things too much. However, if the end result is a better understanding of the rule, then so be it. Down the road it will make me a better official.

I'm sorry if that stubbornness rubs any of you the wrong way. It's not meant to offend, it's meant to get more out of you.

Or maybe I'm just thick. I don't know. I have a better understanding of the rule, and I'm better for it. I could have just said "okay, it's a charge". But doing so would have been wrong of me. Unless I don't care.

Again... I'm sorry if that's too much for any of you to handle. I'm here to be better. If I make some friends, then that's great. I'd love that. But the bottom line is to be better, and due to my stubbornness I am.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

My intention is to understand a rule entirely, not just accept what the right call is and move on to the next play.

No one is disputing that your goal is good. Only that your methods of achieving that goal could be improved (and then maybe you'd advance to your goal more quickly and with other benefits).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

My intention is to understand a rule entirely, not just accept what the right call is and move on to the next play. That could very well mean reading into things too much. However, if the end result is a better understanding of the rule, then so be it. Down the road it will make me a better official.

I'm sorry if that stubbornness rubs any of you the wrong way. It's not meant to offend, it's meant to get more out of you.

Or maybe I'm just thick. I don't know. I have a better understanding of the rule, and I'm better for it. I could have just said "okay, it's a charge". But doing so would have been wrong of me. Unless I don't care.

Again... I'm sorry if that's too much for any of you to handle. I'm here to be better. If I make some friends, then that's great. I'd love that. But the bottom line is to be better, and due to my stubbornness I am.

Fair enough, and if you truly are here to learn, more power to you. Personally, you didn't rub me wrong through stubbornness. It was the comments on this and the other thread that you personally felt the game was skewed in one direction more than you like, and that if you could find a way to interpret a rule differently that what we're told so that you can further your personal opinion of fairness - that you would do so.

I have NO PROBLEM at all with you disagreeing with the pack and trying to understand where the difference lies (and heck .. maybe convincing those who disagree with you that you might be right - it happens)... I have HUGE issue with trying to instill your personal ideas of fairness on the game in contradiction with what the rules and the Rules Interpretors say.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Fair enough, and if you truly are here to learn, more power to you. Personally, you didn't rub me wrong through stubbornness. It was the comments on this and the other thread that you personally felt the game was skewed in one direction more than you like, and that if you could find a way to interpret a rule differently that what we're told so that you can further your personal opinion of fairness - that you would do so.

I have NO PROBLEM at all with you disagreeing with the pack and trying to understand where the difference lies (and heck .. maybe convincing those who disagree with you that you might be right - it happens)... I have HUGE issue with trying to instill your personal ideas of fairness on the game in contradiction with what the rules and the Rules Interpretors say.

I don't know why I said that, because you're right... that is messed up.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact. That is, unless you say he shouldn't be allowed to catch that ball in the first place.

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.

[JetMetFan]

By the way, here's the case play from the NCAA (it's AR 85 in both rule books):

B1 takes a spot on the playing court before A1 jumps to catch a pass.
1. A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1; or
2. B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 comes to the floor on one foot and then charges into B1.
RULING: In both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1. In (1), B1 is entitled to that spot on the floor provided (s)he gets there legally before the offensive player becomes airborne. However, in (2), when A1 possesses the ball then lands on the floor, no time and distance is required.
(Rule 4-17.4.c and .d, 4-17.3 and Exception 4-17.7)

[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.