(02-15-2019 02:59 PM)Flippmb Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 11:21 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I came very close in my earlier post to mentioning the Rodriguez call. Respectfullly, imo it also was very clearly a charge, and thus consistent with the Stallworth call. First of all, in the main, the "circle rule" doesn't apply to the primary defender, which is who Rodriguez plowed over. Second of all (which is irrelevant considering the primary factor), I think although the defender *maybe* was in the circle (to my eyes, his feet were sort of on it or straddling it - close call). I think many refs actually miss that call when it's the primary defender who gets rammed into.

I think you may be right, but for the wrong reasons. Rodriguez is a couple of feet above the foul line when he receives the pass and starts his drive. The defender, Najdawi, is guarding Armus (literally touching him), near the basket and moving away from Rodriguez. I don't know the criteria officials use to define someone as a primary defender, but I don't see how this fits any logical definition.

As to your other point, Najdawi is definitely standing on the line of the circle, which is defined as being in the circle. However, it looks like he hops outside, just before Rodriguez leaves his feet for the shot. As you said, close call.

I wish I could see that again. I just tried to find a video of it and failed. If it had been on ESPN minus, it could be re-viewed. But I *think* I remember it pretty distinctly. In any event...……….

"A secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position in the Restricted Area for the purposes of drawing a player control foul/charge on a player who is in control of the ball (i.e., dribbling or shooting) or who has released the ball for a pass or try for goal. When illegal contact occurs within this Restricted Area, such contact shall be called a blocking foul, unless the contact is flagrant. (Exception: When the offensive player leads with a foot or unnatural extended knee or wards off with the arm.)
This restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot."

"However, a "secondary defender" is any of:
"a teammate who has helped a primary defender after that player has been beaten by an opponent because he/she failed to establish or maintain a guarding position. A defensive player is beaten when the offensive player’s head and shoulders get past the defender.";
"a teammate who double teams a low post player";
or, any player, when outnumbered in a fast break (e.g. a 2-on-1)."

NCAA rules on this matter

I reviewed it, he didn’t even have 1 foot in the circle. It was a good call. Occurs at the 9:10 mark in the first half.

(02-16-2019 06:01 AM)Efan Wrote:  I reviewed it, he didn’t even have 1 foot in the circle. It was a good call. Occurs at the 9:10 mark in the first half.

As an FYI The foul I was referring to occurred in the 2nd half.

(02-16-2019 08:25 AM)BucDoctor Wrote:  

(02-16-2019 06:01 AM)Efan Wrote:  I reviewed it, he didn’t even have 1 foot in the circle. It was a good call. Occurs at the 9:10 mark in the first half.

As an FYI The foul I was referring to occurred in the 2nd half.

Ok, looked at that one too. He did have 1 foot in the circle, but apparently it’s the primary defender thing coming into play here. Bruce Tranbarger even mentioned he was the primary defender and the restricted circle rule didn’t apply. I didn’t know that and apparently some of the coaching staff didn’t either. Tranbarger also mentioned how the coaching staff was yelling he was in the circle.

(02-16-2019 08:58 AM)Efan Wrote:  

(02-16-2019 08:25 AM)BucDoctor Wrote:  

(02-16-2019 06:01 AM)Efan Wrote:  I reviewed it, he didn’t even have 1 foot in the circle. It was a good call. Occurs at the 9:10 mark in the first half.

As an FYI The foul I was referring to occurred in the 2nd half.

Ok, looked at that one too. He did have 1 foot in the circle, but apparently it’s the primary defender thing coming into play here. Bruce Tranbarger even mentioned he was the primary defender and the restricted circle rule didn’t apply. I didn’t know that and apparently some of the coaching staff didn’t either. Tranbarger also mentioned how the coaching staff was yelling he was in the circle.

There was one charge against Jermoy that I guess was fine but the bucket should have clearly counted, he released the ball well before contact.

Rod, I *think* they changed that rule several years ago. I think they wipe those off even if the ball was released ahead of time. I remember being upset at one of those a few years ago, but then looked it up and it had changed. That's my memory at least. There *may* be an exception to that, tho, being that if the ball has already gone through the hoop when contact occurs, then it can still count. Not gonna take time to look all that up at the moment, tho.

And as to said memory...……..mine was that the defender in question was the primary defender on that play (indeed, as BucDoctor said, which was in the second half). And if Tranbarger also said he was the primary defender, then, well, he should know (altho I certainly don't give him full credit for being right on stuff all the time). But without being able to see it again, I can't outright contradict Flippmb's account that Najdawi was "literally touching" Armus (while presumable guarding him).

(02-16-2019 11:29 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Rod, I *think* they changed that rule several years ago. I think they wipe those off even if the ball was released ahead of time. I remember being upset at one of those a few years ago, but then looked it up and it had changed. That's my memory at least. There *may* be an exception to that, tho, being that if the ball has already gone through the hoop when contact occurs, then it can still count. Not gonna take time to look all that up at the moment, tho.

Upon checking, I think I got that right. It's actually kinda complicated, and there's a difference between high school, college, and even *junior* high - and of course NBA. And sometimes there's a distinction between an "airborne" shooter, vs. not. Also, once a shot is released, a foul then becomes a "team-possession" foul instead of a "player-control" foul. All that said...…………….

Does the shot count on a player-control foul?

Can't copy-and-paste since it's a pdf file, but see #1 under "INTERPRETATIONS":

"....when a player-control foul occurs after a goal, the goal shall be cancelled."

That's from Nov., 2017, so I think it's current. Anyone else who has better or more current info, please chime in.

(02-16-2019 11:29 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  And as to said memory...……..mine was that the defender in question was the primary defender on that play (indeed, as BucDoctor said, which was in the second half). And if Tranbarger also said he was the primary defender, then, well, he should know (altho I certainly don't give him full credit for being right on stuff all the time). But without being able to see it again, I can't outright contradict Flippmb's account that Najdawi was "literally touching" Armus (while presumable guarding him).

My initial comments referred to the charge call in the first half, so put those aside. Regarding the call in the second half, which comes at the 7:12 mark, Najdawi is unquestionably within the circle. And, as with the call in the first half, I don't see any way Najdawi can logically be considered a primary defender.

When Rodriguez receives the ball in the middle of the lane, both he and Armus are beneath the basket. Once again, Najdawi is literally touching Armus. Not only that, Armus is between Najdawi and Rodriguez.

As Rodriguez drives to the basket, Najdawi steps from behind Armus, plants himself within the circle and draws the "charge." As I said, I don't see any logical way that Najdawi can be considered a primary defender. So, in my opinion, bad call. Very bad call.

FYI, the replay is still available on the ESPN3 website.

(02-16-2019 01:52 PM)Flippmb Wrote:  My initial comments referred to the charge call in the first half, so put those aside...…….
FYI, the replay is still available on the ESPN3 website.

I tried and tried and tried to find a way to watch it on ESPN3 last night. Will try again after this current game. Thanks.
And I believe, like BucDoctor (I believe), that it was a call in the second half I/we was thinking about. So.........glad you clarified.

Also...…….I saw, in two readings, reference to a call being a block "unless it's egregious", and I believe that was being quoted from the rulebook, but didn't go try and find that. So maybe it was called a charge (or more properly, a "player-control" foul) in this instance because it was deemed "egregious". The way he "plowed" over (my term) the defender, maybe that was their view, too.
Also, it was very interesting to read about the new emphasis on a defender being able to "wall up" on an attacking shooter. Although that's not something that applies in this case.