I agree with Mark. This behavior was egregious to the point that it requires additional punishment. It really should come directly from Syracuse as they're the ones who should be embarrassed by his behavior, but universities have apparently stopped pretending they're anything other than semi-pro sports teams.

The Boeheim Soap Opera Continues
 

Public swiping at officials is turning into a sport all to itself.......

Syracuse's Jim Boeheim takes jab at Maryland's Mark Turgeon

Really late to this discussion, but I only see one T in the video. Can someone clarify ... Did Boeheim already have one earlier, did another official call a T first before the calling official had the second, or was it a single flagrant T that earned the ejection?

What's next?
 

Jeez, is he headed down the Woody Hayes road to retirement?

No, he's turning into an a$$-hole.

No need to suspend...
 

I could see a fine for his post game comments if they crossed the line (I didn't see his interview), but I don't think a suspension is warranted for the on court behavior. He lost it, got thrown out, gave the ref an earful so he could get the last word and then left. It seems to me the line is drawn where words/tantrum during the game: the ejection is your punishment. The punishment goes further when there is contact or I suppose some sort of "Bob Knightish" equipment throwing. That "line" works well IMO.

Getting ejected in the last 3 seconds of a contest is NO punishment in my book.

Costing his team the game is.

While I agree, I do rather prefer the way most states do it for high school: ejected coaches get to sit a game or two automatically just for being tossed.

Now, I'm not naive enough to think the Boeheim's and Krewshewooooskis of the world would tolerate such punishments, but it's a nice thought.

On this I heard Jim Boeheim interviewed on Dan Patrick this morning and he said, "They're calling it a block this year. When it's close."

Now is he getting that from some NCAA philosophy that tells officials what to call in when-in-doubt situations? Or is that just more coach-speak?

No, that comes from the officials having the new rule in the back of their minds this season and calling clear or close charge plays a block.

I'm not an official, but I'm kind of a nerd for sports rules. And also in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a Duke fan. I do not believe, however, that that colors my objectivity...but maybe I'm wrong.

I registered here to ask the community to do me a favor and critique or give me feedback on a defense of the player control foul called at the end of the Duke/Syracuse game.

Block or Charge

I figure I'll find confirmation or contradiction of some of my claims or understandings of how the block/charge rule is called might be found as I read through the forum, but I thought I'd just throw this out there and get some constructive criticism.

My hope is that, if I'm not totally off the mark, that I might clean this up and then offer it to folks like Jay Bilas and Dan Shulman at ESPN to review before they (in my opinion) perpetuate errors about what a guarding defender is allowed to do and what is/isn't a block.

Appreciate it.

Excellent analysis. I wasn't sure I was going to read it all but I did. You nailed every point as far as I'm concerned...the right rules, the right interpretation of the rules, the right application of the rules, and great video clip work to support it.

Head straight to you local officials association and sign up now. If you know the rules that well, you have a sizeable piece of becoming a good official already solved. Any local association could probably use another official who cares enough as you do.

As for the sportscasters, most are not likely to listen at all. They'll continue to believe the myths they learned on the playground 30 years ago.

If there is anything that needs cleanup, I can't find it.

If I could use replay to make calls, yeah, I might be good at being an official. But I'm terrible at seeing things in real time. My first impression was that it was a block. It wasn't until the replay and Dan Shulman's statement that I thought "hey, wait...that's not right."

The article's too long and wordy, so I'll probably try to condense it without losing the main emphasis, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting the rules wrong. I vetted it through a neighbor who currently works Division I women's games in the Southeast, but I thought I'd try this forum.

Appreciate the feedback. Thanks.

I read it a few minutes ago and thought this as well. Good luck with your revisions!

The problem is not that we (the officials) don't have instant replay. The problem is that those others guys do have instant replay.

Here's a question I still have.

I understand about establishing legal guarding position prior to the offensive player having begun his upward motion; but the rules don't say anything about upward motion as it pertains to a defender's ability to MAINTAIN legal guarding position.

Does the defender's rights to lateral motion to maintain LGP end when the shoot or passer begins his upward motion? Or is the upward motion criteria only applicable to when establishing LGP as the rule specifies?

In a nutshell, it seems like you can't slide or jump into LGP when the offensive player is beginning to go airborne, but if you got that LGP early, you can slide or jump into an adjusted position even if the opponent has begun his upward motion. That seems to be a hangup with critics of mine who insist this cannot be true and that the defender has to be committed to his spot by the time the shooter/passer's upwards motion has begun and that he can't make anymore adjustments to his position.

This actually sounds reasonable to me, but it's not specifically in the rule book. What say you all?

I understand your concern. NCAA 4-17-6 has a list of things that a defender can and cannot do once they have LGP.

When it comes to upward motion, the rule assumes that in order to draw a charge, the defender has been in the path, and continues to be in the path of the offensive player. If the defender has LGP but the offensive player changes his/her path (the Euro step for example) and then starts upward motion to shoot or pass, the defender is assumed to have lost LGP due to no longer being in the path. The onus is really on the defender to make those path adjustments and perhaps re-establish LGP before upward motion occurs.

Another example: the LGP requirements in section 4 state that the defender needs both feet on the floor and torso facing the opponent. Then, section 6 says a player that has LGP cannot lose it if they do not have two feet on the floor, or if they no longer face the opponent. In essence, you can't lose attained LGP through anything involving the feet, or turning to absorb contact. There is no such provision for the "path" requirement however. You need to be in the path to establish LGP, but there is nothing in section 6 that says you keep LGP even if you are no longer in the path, with the exception of Article 6d which does give opportunity for a defender to briefly go out of the path and move laterally to maintain. Thus, if the defender is ever out of the path (especially once the offensive player goes airborne), they lose LGP.

Put succinctly: if a defender is ever out of the path of an offensive player, they need to have gotten back into the path before upward motion occurs. If the offensive player keeps dribbling, then LGP is maintained. If the offensive player starts upward motion to shoot or pass, the defender must have gotten back in the path before the gather/upward motion. Otherwise, LGP is lost.

If that is confusing I apologize. I'll keep thinking about how I can explain it better, as I don't fully understand it myself.

Yes (No, It's Not Marv Albert) ...
 

We have an official, here in Connecticut, who works, as a sportcaster, for the New York Knicks, and who also freelances for other networks when available. I've heard him speak to his fellow officials, and he says that his attitude about mistakes by officials that he sees in his Knicks games has changed since he became a high school official.

Yeah, I'm still a little confused by all that.

In a nutshell, I'm just wondering if the "upward motion" of the offensive player has any bearing on a defenders ability to move while "maintaining" legal guarding position (LGP).

In the NCAA rules, the "upward motion" limiting clause is referenced only in 4-17.4 pertaining to the initial establishment of LGP. But in 4-17.6 which governs maintaining LGP, there's no reference to "upward motion" of the offensive player or how it restricts defenders movement after that upward motion has begun.

I've been specifically told by a working official that the defender CAN move or shuffle his feet within the definition of 4-17.6 as long as he isn't the one initiating the contact, such as moving into the opponent with his movement.

But I'm also finding other claimed knowledgeable sources saying that's wrong and that "upward motion" also applies to what the defender can/can't do when maintaining LGP.

Here's some body of unknown credentials (YouTube handle = "Officiating Clips") who states that defender's feet need to be frozen once the offensive player leaves his feet -- he posted this before the rule change so you can insert "begins his upward motion" for that terminology without changing anything regarding his interpretation of the rule.

Block/Charge Quiz (For Men's NCAA prior to rules changes in 2013-2014) - YouTube

Here, he's not making a distinction between establishing and maintaining legal guarding position. I'm trending down the path of believing that if you've already established legal guarding position, you can shuffle your feet to maintain it even if the opposing player has begun his upward motion. No?

It gets better with practice. Give it a shot, you might be surprised.

I've edited the page and tried to be a bit more concise. I don't think I can whittle it down much further without losing the detail I think is important.

Block or Charge

I'm still uncertain whether the "upward motion" restricts motion of the defender after initial legal guarding position is established but while he's maintaining it. Specifically, the brunt of my defense of Tony Greene's call is that the defender's little shuffling of the feet even after the offensive player has begun that upward motion is legal, as long has his motion isn't initiating contact.

But perhaps my whole premise is wrong and once that upward motion begins, all of the defender's foot movement does have to stop and he has to be committed to his spot. It doesn't read that way in the rules, but I'm reading some claimed officiating experts saying that is the intent.

If there are opinions on this, I'd like to hear them; but regardless, I appreciate the feedback already received.

Upward motion simply defines the time at which LGP must have already been established... once it's established (and assuming it's not lost), upward motion has no further effect on this call.

Agreed. At no point are the defender's feet required to be stationary.

Thanks for the confirmation.

While I agree, there are too many officials that just don't understand that and default to a block simply based on seeing the feet move.

Agreed. Many of them tend to frequent internet boards such as F....
Never mind.

;)