***Official Men's NCAA Tournament Discussion Thread***

[redout22]

FGCU could very well be the most athletic team in the tournament

[Mavric]

Damn good breakdown of just how awful the Craft charge call was, from USA Today:

 

http://www.usatoday....-state/2015301/

Except for the part where they use absolutely no rules references to justify their position.

 

First, if Craft's heel was still moving, then he wasn't properly set.

Totally incorrect. There is nothing in the rule book that states the heels have to be down. The player only has to have both feet on the floor to establish position, which Craft obviously did.

 

 

Second, a defender standing over the restricted area is considered to be in the restricted area. The application of the rule isn't like a ball handler standing with his heels over the out of bounds area. If Craft's foot was above the semi-circle, then he can't take a charge. (The ruling is similar to how it's considered a touchdown if a football crosses the plane of the end zone, but not out of bounds if a ball crossed the plane of the sideline.)

Also totally made up as far as I can tell. I can find no rule stating that being over the restricted area means you're inside it and that would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the rules. Everything else is explicitly where you are touching the floor or where you last touched the floor if airborne. Until someone can show differently, I don't believe this ruling would be any different.

 

 

The problem, perhaps, isn't with the call, it's with the idea that college basketball rewards defensive players for sliding into position and standing still rather than playing defense.

In fact, the restricted area does just the opposite. It gives the advantage to the offense because it doesn't matter how good of defense is being played or how long a defender has held his position, it's still a foul on the defense if they are inside the restricted area.

 

Not trying to pick on you, tschu, but it always amuses me how sure people are that the refs are doing a terrible job when they don't even know the rules or how they apply.

[WoodyHayes1951]

Damn good breakdown of just how awful the Craft charge call was, from USA Today:

 

http://www.usatoday....-state/2015301/

 

 

 

Damn....when USAtoday is butt-hurt then you know it's good.

[Mavric]

Let's go Gophers. At least make this interesting.

[tschu]

lol Mavric

 

You also used zero rules references to justify your position. So do please go on.

[QMany]

Damn good breakdown of just how awful the Craft charge call was, from USA Today:

 

http://www.usatoday....-state/2015301/

Except for the part where they use absolutely no rules references to justify their position.

 

First, if Craft's heel was still moving, then he wasn't properly set.

Totally incorrect. There is nothing in the rule book that states the heels have to be down. The player only has to have both feet on the floor to establish position, which Craft obviously did.

 

 

Second, a defender standing over the restricted area is considered to be in the restricted area. The application of the rule isn't like a ball handler standing with his heels over the out of bounds area. If Craft's foot was above the semi-circle, then he can't take a charge. (The ruling is similar to how it's considered a touchdown if a football crosses the plane of the end zone, but not out of bounds if a ball crossed the plane of the sideline.)

Also totally made up as far as I can tell. I can find no rule stating that being over the restricted area means you're inside it and that would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the rules. Everything else is explicitly where you are touching the floor or where you last touched the floor if airborne. Until someone can show differently, I don't believe this ruling would be any different.

On your first point, that is wrong. You do not have to be "set" or have your both of your feet set. Common misconception.

 

On your second point, that is wrong. The NCAA Director of Officiating even said on TV that "over" equals in. It is not like hovering above an out of bounds line.

[Mavric]

On your first point, that is wrong. You do not have to be "set" or have your both of your feet set. Common misconception.

 

On your second point, that is wrong. The NCAA Director of Officiating even said on TV that "over" equals in. It is not like hovering above an out of bounds line.

No, I am correct about the feet. You have to have both feet on the floor to establish legal guarding position, which is what I said. After that you can move.

 

As far as being over, that could be. There is nothing in the rule book that states over equals in. There could be some other document or instruction that says that but I haven't seen it and I didn't see the interview.

[The Dude]

This is more noteworthy:

 

[tschu]

FFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGCCCCCCCCCCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[redout22]

dp

[redout22]

On your first point, that is wrong. You do not have to be "set" or have your both of your feet set. Common misconception.

 

On your second point, that is wrong. The NCAA Director of Officiating even said on TV that "over" equals in. It is not like hovering above an out of bounds line.

No, I am correct about the feet. You have to have both feet on the floor to establish legal guarding position, which is what I said. After that you can move.

 

As far as being over, that could be. There is nothing in the rule book that states over equals in. There could be some other document or instruction that says that but I haven't seen it and I didn't see the interview.

No actually you dont have to have either feet set to take a charge. You can be in the air and take a charge as long as you arent moving side to side. It is indeed in the rulebook.

[redout22]

FGCU is going all the way!!

[QMany]

On your first point, that is wrong. You do not have to be "set" or have your both of your feet set. Common misconception.

 

On your second point, that is wrong. The NCAA Director of Officiating even said on TV that "over" equals in. It is not like hovering above an out of bounds line.

No, I am correct about the feet. You have to have both feet on the floor to establish legal guarding position, which is what I said. After that you can move.

 

As far as being over, that could be. There is nothing in the rule book that states over equals in. There could be some other document or instruction that says that but I haven't seen it and I didn't see the interview.

Ok, I misread your first comment. You are right about establishing the position.

 

I did not know the rule about hovering about the line either. The NCAA Director of Officiating said over would equal in, but it is not a reviewable play. I think that should be a reviewable play, much like 2-3 point play designation or determining when a ball goes out of bounds.

[QMany]

On your first point, that is wrong. You do not have to be "set" or have your both of your feet set. Common misconception.

 

On your second point, that is wrong. The NCAA Director of Officiating even said on TV that "over" equals in. It is not like hovering above an out of bounds line.

No, I am correct about the feet. You have to have both feet on the floor to establish legal guarding position, which is what I said. After that you can move.

 

As far as being over, that could be. There is nothing in the rule book that states over equals in. There could be some other document or instruction that says that but I haven't seen it and I didn't see the interview.

No actually you dont have to have either feet set to take a charge. You can be in the air and take a charge as long as you arent moving side to side. It is indeed in the rulebook.

You are both correct, really. Mavric is right about establishing position. Then after establishing position, you can move (jump).

[Haspula]

Come on Creighton. 10-4 duke