UNC/Duke (Video)
 

About 9:25 first half. Close block/charge play called player control against UNC.

Then Bilas gave his whole "you can't move" spiel. :rolleyes:

Easy charge.

Good call. Calling official had a beautiful view...a classic pass and crash.

Bilas is an a$$, as usual. Amazing how he is so consistently wrong.

Worth another look is the GT/BI call at 13:26 second half.

Pat Driscoll goes down and Jay Bilas says, "I think he was getting his feet set to take a charge." Clever Bilas, clever.

I would like to see the block called against UNC at either 4:39 or 4:29 in the second half. I had a hard time finding what the defender did wrong in real time.

Yup, looked like a good block to me. I don't know if the video will show anything because they never showed a different angle.

Defender started falling before contact, often called a block at this level. Plus I think he was slightly late.

Foul call with 44 seconds left.

Pivot after jump stop by Okafor in OT. Travel or not?

I'm going to need the time for this play...in general, I'm don't search for plays.

I never saw the defender move forward. Sure looked to me like he continued to move backward, but I'll give Tim Nestor the benefit of the doubt until I see it again. And, falling before contact does not constitute a block.

My bad. 1:44 remaining in OT.

It does according to the college guys I've talked to. They've told me the defender has to take it.

Not according to the rules. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the premise that falling before contact constitutes a block is backed up nowhere in the rules book.

I'm well aware of the rule, and I am sure the D1 official who made the call is as well. I'm talking about the standards and expectations for how plays are officiated at that level, but you can go ahead and call that play a charge in your games.

If you would take a second to actually read my posts instead of getting defensive, I never said it was a charge and gave Nestor the benefit of the doubt. I asked what the defender did wrong. In my judgment, without any replay, he did nothing wrong by the rules. Falling early does not make it a block. Period. If D1 officials are told your philosophy, fine. I'm merely pointing out what the rules say.

Which is fine, but I never claimed it was rules knowledge yet you were quick to point out it wasn't in the rules. Don't know why you need to constantly point this out when I'm clearly sharing what I've heard. Do I need to provide a disclaimer every time I post??

I looked for travels that I would have called in real time and found three. One was already mentioned with Okafor. The others were 19:25 of the first half and 3:12 in overtime. I believe both were Winslow for Duke. If you're going to the basket, you really get some leeway.

I don't think anybody doubts your word about what you hear. But do you hear these guys expand on this any more than that?

"I know this is not absolutely correct by rule, but this is what we're expected to call/not call in that situation."

Or is this one of those things that everybody involved knows it's there, but nobody talks about it?

And do we hear any more specifics than that? (you don't have to name names here.) Since ___________ got to be supervisor of (whatever) we've been told to back off on calling travels. (or whatever)

The NCAA rule may as well be written like the NBA rule at this point.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QaleU_Lc61E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dJNeCMpqeWI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XEN2V5Qtztk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Both of these plays happen one after each other...one at 47 and one at 41...didn't know which one. You get both.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/po1hyz08U3U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0liEJdtUP74" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zma3uveukcA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm thinking it's possible.

#1. Great charge call.

#2. Not GT...was contacted before it started coming down.

#3. Poor camera angle but it appears to be a block.

#4. Correct call...smacked him across the upper arm.

#5. Can't find anything the defender did wrong.

#6. Very obvious travel....if they're not going to call that, they should take it out of the book.

Agree with you 100 % A bit surprised they had a whistle on #5. But what do I know.....At that point everyone gets a bit excited and may be blows a bit early.....

What about it?

I think it's one of these.

Nope, never heard to back off on traveling, but there's an understanding about how traveling is officiated too. Most of the stuff I hear from conference supervisors involves mechanics they don't want officials in their conference using and how loosely they want bench decorum/sportsmanship enforced.

1) good with the PC

2) close, hard to tell from video. I missed one myself last week

3) looks like a PC

4) good block, should have been a held ball

5) nothing

6) have to look at it too many times to see where he gathered, so I'm good with a no-call

I thought so at first, but last camera angle shows it was clean.

UNC/Duke (Video)
 

With 29 seconds remaining in 2nd half, is this an illegal screen (mugging) by Duke's Winslow on Jones' game tying drive?

#6 I do not see a walk here. I did think it was when I saw it live (first view from TV) but not after watching the first replays last night (and even without Bilas' claim Okafor is the next Olajuwon) After his jump stop, both feet landing simultaneously, it appears to me he then pivots off his left foot, taking a step to basket and scoring. If anything was unusual about this play, possibly a carry a few dribbles before entering the paint, but can't see it clear enough.

Not saying this is right, but I was thinking...

1. When the defender falls back early it kind of acts like an undercut of the shooter, which can be dangerous.

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

Or a no-call.

The point of #1 is that it's a dangerous play, and therefore you don't want players doing it. And to accomplish that a foul could be called there.

1. Still his spot and he has a legal right to move backwards.
2. I agree sometimes it minimizes contact to the point where we don't have a foul. But in that case,

we don't have a foul.

1) Good call

2) Nothing. Ball was not on its way down nor was it within the cylinder. I can hardly fault the officials for that though–we all know how difficult that call is.

3) What does the defender do wrong here? That's either PC or a no-call.

4) Looks clean.

5) Again, what did the defender do wrong?

6) Crew gets the benefit of the doubt.

Now put yourself as the C on the play. Officiating UNC #2 defending on the drive by Duke #5. Duke #12 with a screen at the elbow on UNC #2 at the same time holding with the left arm UNC #13 on the drive by Duke #5 to the basket.

Right or wrong, the L chose to stay and not rotate. Duke #15 and UNC #3 are on the block and the L chose to stay with them (no fault in that thinking). If the L decides to rotate, it would be late and he would most likely be looking at the drive by Duke#5 and not the hold by Duke #12.

This is a tough play to officiate through the eyes of the crew on the floor but I believe the best look would've been the L if he didn't have the post players in front of him.

Since he gathered and jumped on one foot is he allowed to pivot?

Looking at it again and seeing where/when he gathered it looks like he uses his left foot to come to a jump stop. By 4.44.2A ('11-'12CB) he cannot pivot. But he can jump off both feet for a try, just not sure that's what he did. Looks like he lifts his right foot and jumps off his left as he goes to shoot. As someone else said: splitting hairs, and with all they let go now, that seems minimal

Assuming your description is correct (I didn't watch the video), then why wouldn't that be legal?

All good except he's not allowed to pivot after the jump stop and he did....with a large step, not a little shuffle or anything that could be considered hair splitting.

He jumped off of one foot well after catching the ball prior to the jump stop....he had it in both hands above his head before he jumped.

I hear this reasoning often, but as its not supported by the rules I just don't buy it. THe rules say that a player with lgp can move backwards. We are also expressly told they are alloud to protect themselves, even if this inlcludes movements that might normally be illegal (twisting or turning).

Requiring players to stand there and take "it" not only flys in the face of the rule, but in a culture much more sensitive to concussions and collisions in sport is esentially an officiating endorsement of punishing kids for not putting themselves at further risk.

If you want to no call it because the contact is now minimal and you don't feel they are disadvantaged I can live with that but calling a block is tantamount to saying I'm calling a foul because you are soft. And creates a much more physical and risky culture.

Now I'm not an NCAA officials and if my boss and colleagues all said "We are calling this block" then I would have to make that decision or judgement in that situation. In my current situation and by the standard the rules lay out. PC or no call.

On the first block/charge- It doesn't look like L had a great angle, and he reached across two lines to get there. Granted, C didn't have much of an angle either. Not sure if C passed, or if he was hoping for a late whistle from L and would have come in even later with a strong whistle if L passed. Still, with L reaching across two lines and banging it out- that's how a blarge happens!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2JS8bBmggjU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No verticality
 

We are advised to call it a block because if he starts leaning back before contact, he lost verticality and is no longer has LGP. No different than if he had his arms extended and made contact. (I didn't watch the video - I am referring to a case where they start to fall backwards without contact - not moving backwards with their feet)

while I think a foul could have been called on the play, I find that we're usually better served if we stay away from inflammatory words such as "mugging."

Leaning back does not cause one to lose LGP. And, no, this is not anything like extending an arm and making contact.

and we are told defender cannot move in any direction except vertically before contact. they made a point to say this when they changed the block/charge rule from last year's fiasco.

Right, so what could he have done legally after the jump stop to get his shot off? Jumped with both feet?

BTW, any diff NCAA/NFHS in this play?

In the NFL he would have been flagged.

Interesting interpretation of the LGP rule.

Wrong, but interesting.

Also a wrong interpretation of the rule. Players may always move backwards after gaining LGP. In fact, the only direction of movement that costs them their LGP is towards the ball handler.

Actually, I heard the same thing in one of my preseason clinics.

Most definitely a foul on that screen; the screen looks fine but the blatant holding of the help defender is a foul. Nicely disguised though.

No Adam, It's not wrong. It was approved in June by the NCAA oversight panel. If you are attempting to draw a charge on a pass or shot you must be in position before contact occurs and you cannot move in ANY DIRECTION before contact occurs.(except vertically).

and i don't have the time for it until after the season but id like to have a conversation about lgp/rules v how the game has been played for years, and years etc.

You can jump with both feet. You can lift one foot and then jump off the other (which is what you, I think, described earlier as being illegal -- it isn't).

What you can't do (under this type of jump stop) is lift either foot and return it to the floor.

Someone may have said it, but it is still wrong. A defender can ALWAYS legally move away from the point of contact. There is absolutely no rule support even close to saying otherwise. Whoever is saying it is making stuff up. Just because some number of officials have called it wrong for years and years doesn't make it right.

When I say I heard it, I heard it in some form of context from the NCAA. I remember being taken aback about it, as it was just sort of glossed over. I believe I even brought it up here in a thread before the season started.

However, the preseason slides from Art Hyland contain the followin text concerning 4-17-4:

"If defender establishes legal guarding position before shooter becomes airborne, defender may jump straight in the air or move backwards"

The NCAA oversight panel has said it. There in charge. They get to make "stuff up." It was recommended and approved. You will see it in the next rule book.

1. The shooter creates a dangerous situation so let's reward it by calling a foul on the defender who did nothing wrong? Wow.

Jay Bilas will approve.

I just reviewed the preseason NCAA video, John Adams says the defender may move backwards. But I know I heard or read something "official" from the NCAA saying the defender couldn't move backwards. I wish I would have taken better note of it when I came across the information.

I think some people, perhaps even those with some authority are probably speaking incompletely and others are assuming the comment was absolute when it was intended to apply to a specific set of circumstances.

Moving backwards and leaning backwards are two different things. When I was learning how to officiate and become an HS official I went to a camp run by a D1 official. In that camp the expectation was that leaning back should be a blocking foul while a defender can move backwards without penalty. As I have moved up to college basketball, that has seemed to be the expectation at every level I have made it to. I continue to officiate these plays using that philosophy and will continue to do so in all the college and HS games I work. At the end of the day, whether or not that philosophy is correct by rule or not is irrelevant. As long as the idea is to continue to get games or move up the ladder, it is much more important for an official to follow the accepted practices rather than be a martyr.

I prefer to do both...and I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the problem.

True, and neither is illegal.



This is the part I've been waiting to see flatly stated.
This is what your bosses say to do, so this is what you do and that's not your fault. I'll buy that. But the fact that these guys in charge order things contrary to the rules is a crock, if you ask me, which nobody ever does.

I think you would find it difficult to get any of the guys in charge or that teach this philosophy to agree that it is illegal. I have never asked for any particular person's reasoning regarding this issue, but I think they would make an argument that has already been raised in this thread. Leaning backwards is neither moving laterally, obliquely, or backwards. Nor is it strictly turning or ducking to absorb shock of imminent contact. An argument can be made, that it also violates the principle of verticality. I can see both sides of this argument, and frankly because I like to keep my boss happy by doing what they expect, I really do not see much benefit into analyzing it in that great of detail to see whether or not I agree with this theoretical argument.

To succeed as a college official, you need to know the rules and the manual AND how that particular game's supervisor wants the rules interpreted and mechanics executed. That's just a fact of life at the collegiate level.

Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean it should be.

I'm not sacrificing my career for that battle, especially since that aspect of college officiating doesn't bother me. And it doesn't bother most college officials.

My question: who determines whether or not it is right?

That's why I asked about any difference in interp on this between NCAA and NFHS. Originally, as I said, I thought it to be a legal move: come to a legal jump stop as he did, turn face basket, then pivot on left foot after lifting right foot, and jump from that pivot foot towards the basket for a shot. I still think that is legal, but I'm second guessing myself I suppose when I read from NF 11-12 CB 4.44.2A that says after coming to a jump stop "it is a violation if A1 pivots on either foot".
Clarifications anyone?

NCAA Rule

Rule 4 Section 22. Jump Stop
Art. 1. A jump stop is executed when a player catches the ball while moving or dribbling with:

a. One foot on the playing court, jumps off that foot and lands simultaneously on both feet (no pivot foot).
b. Two feet off the playing court, lands on one foot, jumps off that foot and lands simultaneously on both feet (no pivot foot).

Art. 2. A jump stop may also be executed when the dribbler has one foot on the playing court, initiates a jump off that foot, ends the dribble with both feet off the playing court and lands simultaneously on both feet (either foot can be established as the pivot foot).


If your dribbles ends while airborne, and you land on 2 feet, you get a pivot foot. If you are in possession of the ball (gathered), and you jump off one foot, you get no pivot foot once you land.

This is the hardest part to interpret in my opinion. When does the dribble end (gather) actually happen. If you think of it in a carrying/palming capacity, many times the ball handler doesn't bring his hand all the way under the ball until both feet are off the ground on the "jump stop." In my neck of the woods, the collegiate players can do this legally more often the the majority of the HS players probably because they may be less athletic, less practice, smaller hands, etc....

I think the case could be worded better and/or you are mis-understanding the word "pivot."

Better for the case would be "it is a violation if A1 steps with either foot."

Travelling is "moving the pivot foot in excess of allowed limits" (or something like that. So, when we say "neither foot can be a pivot", it does not mean that neither foot can be lifted, nor does it mean that neither foot can be turned; it means that neither foot can be lifted and returned to the floor.

Well, yes..I def misunderstand THAT definition of the word "pivot". Guess I'll just stick with: if it looks like a duck...:cool:

4-33 PIVOT
"A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball steps once, or more than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor."

It's not uncommon for a person to misconstrue the use of the word "pivot" in the basketball use/sense. The application of the word to basketball is a definite departure from it's common use. In a recent conversation with several newer officials, I asked one to demonstrate what it meant to "pivot" and he extended one foot, placed it on the floor and twisted it.

Now, it is common, while pivoting, for the player to twist the pivot foot, to accomodate the movement of the other foot. But, as noted in 4-33, that twisting is not the substance of the use of the word, in basketball.

It was that very same camera angle that confirmed it was a foul for me....the backside of the defenders triceps comes down on the arm of the shooter.

[QUOTE=johnny d;955501]Moving backwards and leaning backwards are two different things. QUOTE]

I don't think they are in this context.

If the player had established LGP but leaned forward outside their LGP to initate contact with a shooter we would argue he moved into the shooter.

If they player in LGP wishes to lean backward to protect themselves or to move away from the contact they should get the same application of "move".

It doesn't make sense to say" You can't move into the shooter, so no leaning forward because you are moving into them but also say, you can move backwards but no leaning away from them because leaning is not moving.

Good catch. I did not see that contact until you mentioned it.

[QUOTE=Pantherdreams;955569]I *suspect* that the reasoning is something along the lines of the following: Starting to fall back is faking a foul before it happens and makes refs look bad. So we're going to punish that faking by saying once you start faking it, you're no longer in LGP because you aren't guarding any more you're just trying to make me look bad.

[QUOTE=so cal lurker;955575]I don't agree with that either, but if that is your rationale then call the T for faking being fouled. Problem is faking being fouled requires you to believe the only reason they would fall/lean is gain an advantage. You are basically risking T'ing a kid up for being a pu$$y or concussion prone. Any number of legal reasons to protect yourself. Which I assume is why they won't call the T because they can't confirm it, and don't want to deal with the fall out so they cal blocks (make up rules) in hopes the player will stop doing it.

I have that as incidental contact. I called a foul on a similar play at the end of a game recently and I have wanted that call back after seeing some (poor) video of the play.

That contact occurs just prior to him blocking the ball and impacts the shooter enough that a foul is justified.

I would not argue had it been a no call though.

[QUOTE=Pantherdreams;955577]Is that allowed in NCAAM? It's specifically NOT allowed in NCAAW. (It's different from HS)

[QUOTE=Pantherdreams;955577]Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I really don't care what the reason or reasons are for calling it a particular way. The only thing that concerns me, especially at the NCAA level, is that I officiate these plays how every coordinator I have ever worked for expects me to call them, so that I continue to get games. Outside of that, it is just mental gymnastics that I don't have the time or energy to waste.

That's very similar to the play I had, except in my case on defender got all ball causing a double clutch, then the other defender got him across the forearm.

I'm still torn on that play.

Smacking the arm of a shooter that hasn't released the ball is incidental contact?

I might agree if it was the off arm but the ball is in both hands and without it, he can't even get to the ball (which he barely touched). I don't know how that can be incidental even under the most liberal application of the concept.

How tall was the shooter? I've learned in my son's middle school games that the general rule is a player who is 6" or more shorter than the shooter is allowed to slap the arm because otherwise it isn't fair since he's not tall enough to reach the ball. :rolleyes: (Can you tell my son is the tall kid?)

Smacking? With his tricep? I think you have me beat with liberal interpretation. ;)

It is there in the video whether you choose to see it or not. The official on the floor saw it and called it.

I doubt that is what the official saw and why he called the foul.

You don't why the official called the foul, unless you have talked to him about the call. Additionally, unless you have spoken to this official, you have no idea what his feelings were about the call after he reviewed the video. And to say that contact was a "smack" is being less than honest, or a prime example of hyperbole.

But it is most definitely arrogant of you to say I choose not to see it.

Mr. Baumgartner, My High School English Teacher, Would Be Proud Of Me ...
 

Or, it could be a prime example of onomatopoeia.

I asked for opinions based on the dangerous aspect of the play. I was not advocating a block or charge call. BTW... the shooter was just shooting, how did he "create" the situation? Should shooting while moving forward be deemed illegal?

Sounds to me the defender leaning forward is not illegal for moving closer to the shooter, but is illegal for moving out of his verticality... the same no matter which direction he leaned. If I call a defender for a "hacking" foul for having his hands/arms up and out, instead of straight up, it's not because he moved towards the shooter, it's because his arms were not vertical.

The point I was making, and what has been skipped here, is that it's a dangerous play and something should be done to discourage it. The shooter did not create the dangerous part of the play, the defender did... hence the blocking call.

The shooter is going someplace he shouldn't -- he's going into a spot occupied by a defender. So we're going to bail him out with a foul.

Look, I'll call whatever any supervisor tells me to call -- I'm not precious over that kind of thing. But this is a ridiculous line of thinking.

So, according to the above logic, if the dribbler leans back, the defender can knock him to the floor and not be charged with a foul.

I don't know how you're applying what I said to a dribbler, as verticality doesn't apply to him, but OK.

But that doesn't make what the defender does right, either.

Choose whatever verb you want hit, smack, hacked, whatever. I don't pass on any contact coming down across a shooters arm while the shooter is trying to bring the ball up to shoot. Calling that incidental is just silly however you want to dance with the words.

4-45-7: The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

Verticality and LGP, the two principles being discussed here, do not directly apply to shooters or dribblers. Those two things actually help us decide how 4-45-7 is applied.

Y'all do realize that if an offensive player runs over the defender it is possible for the foul to be on that offensive player even if the defender never had LGP at all, don't you?

I only do HS, and if the defender starts falling before any contact it is almost always a block or I will no call it. If they don't stay up and take the contact I'm not giving them a PC