Shockers vs Oklahoma Baptist game thread

[im4wsu]

So Ron Baker was standing there in the paint all alone with both feet set and clearly established a legal guarding position. The other team's point guard is now coming down the court in a one-on-one situation. Ron puts both hands up in the air to show he is not going to hand check. He starts back peddling. Ron back peddles like three steps and stops before he enters the arc, planting both feet, and hands still in the air offering surrender to the reffing gods. The point guard bulldozes into Ron and Ron gets called for the foul.

What could/should Ron have done differently other than just get out of the way and let the point guard score uncontested?

Maybe I didn't see what I thought I saw. Maybe some with a closer view saw it differently than my rose colored eyesight allowed me to see it?

Since you KNOW you're going to be called for a foul, instead of backpeddling, just lower your shoulder and put a hurt on the guy. Just protect yourself from concussions.

[CBB_Fan]

My issue with the new rules isn't the intent, but the way it will be called in bad circumstances. Even the best refs in the world will occasionally miss a call when the play happened a little too fast to pick up all the details or other circumstances prevented them from seeing the play in detail. Under the new rules, those missed called will almost automatically be defensive fouls.

To me, the idea of the new rules to punish defenders that grab and use their hands and promote the idea of defenders using their feet and playing "smart" basketball. That's all fine and dandy, but I saw several times in our last game where the defender DID keep their feet in front of the defender and kept their hands off the offensive player at all times. And then when the offensive player initiated contact and flung up a shot, they were rewarded with FTs. By the new rules the defender did everything asked of them, and yet the reality is that the new rules will tend to be marginalized by the tendency to simply call all contact on a drive as a foul.

[im4wsu]

My issue with the new rules isn't the intent, but the way it will be called in bad circumstances. Even the best refs in the world will occasionally miss a call when the play happened a little too fast to pick up all the details or other circumstances prevented them from seeing the play in detail. Under the new rules, those missed called will almost automatically be defensive fouls.

To me, the idea of the new rules to punish defenders that grab and use their hands and promote the idea of defenders using their feet and playing "smart" basketball. That's all fine and dandy, but I saw several times in our last game where the defender DID keep their feet in front of the defender and kept their hands off the offensive player at all times. And then when the offensive player initiated contact and flung up a shot, they were rewarded with FTs. By the new rules the defender did everything asked of them, and yet the reality is that the new rules will tend to be marginalized by the tendency to simply call all contact on a drive as a foul.

This is the way is should be, IMHO, but you left out the part about being "set" and not moving. RonBaker was backpeddleing and didn't stop before the player started this move to leave his feet. I've always complained (mostly to myself, because nobody else listens to me) that there should be a "principle of horizantalcality" for these situations. Where if the defender has inserted himself into the "direct path to the basket" in time, then it becomes the offensive player's obligation to avoid the contact by attempting another path. It is akin to the "principal of verticality" which is often spoken of but rarely applied in real-game situations, again IMHO.

[Kung Wu]

This is the way is should be, IMHO, but you left out the part about being "set" and not moving. RonBaker was backpeddleing and didn't stop before the player started this move to leave his feet.

He doesn't have to stop. After establishing legal guarding position the defender may move to maintain the position. He can even have one or both feet off the ground when contact is made. To me, backpeddling is proof positive that the defender didn't initiate the contact, the offensive player is initiating it (as long as the defensive player isn't extending their arms forward while backpeddling).

Or did they change this rule in conjunction with the anti-hand checking initiative?

[im4wsu]

He doesn't have to stop. After establishing legal guarding position the defender may move to maintain the position. He can even have one or both feet off the ground when contact is made. To me, backpeddling is proof positive that the defender didn't initiate the contact, the offensive player is initiating it (as long as the defensive player isn't extending their arms forward while backpeddling).

Or did they change this rule in conjunction with the anti-hand checking initiative?

I'm no expert and honestly have not read the actual text of the rule, but I believe the wording refers to "establishing a legal guarding position" before the player initiates his movement to leave the floor. I guess I assume that "establish"means also to "maintain" (mainly because of the Jake White principle of not moving) and I would construe backpeddling as not a legal guarding position. IMHO, it should be construed as a legal guarding position, but I do not believe most referees see it that way.

[ShockerPrez]

Defense needs to change from a mentality of stopping a dribbler into one that channels the dribbler into poor locations and baiting them into bad shots.

Im not sure how to accomplish this, but it seems that standing your ground is going to be a losing strategy. Either you will get called for a foul, or allow easy shots due to a lack of defensive movement.

Shocks and Marshall will adapt and be the best defensr,becausre of MTXE

[RoyalShock]

Even with the new rules, the block calls that went against Baker and Wessel should have been charges. On Baker's the guy led with his forearm. That should still be a charge. In Wessel's case the guy hadn't yet begun his upward movement, and I don't think Evan was in the circle. So that still should have been a charge.

The refs are afraid to call it. Let's hope that after a couple of weeks have gone by that the supervisors of officials will see the issue and correct it.

[1979Shocker]

So Ron Baker was standing there in the paint all alone with both feet set and clearly established a legal guarding position. The other team's point guard is now coming down the court in a one-on-one situation. Ron puts both hands up in the air to show he is not going to hand check. He starts back peddling. Ron back peddles like three steps and stops before he enters the arc, planting both feet, and hands still in the air offering surrender to the reffing gods. The point guard bulldozes into Ron and Ron gets called for the foul.

What could/should Ron have done differently other than just get out of the way and let the point guard score uncontested?

He should have just guarded him. When the point guard goes up for the shot, Ron goes up with him and block the ball.

[Kung Wu]

I'm no expert and honestly have not read the actual text of the rule, but I believe the wording refers to "establishing a legal guarding position" before the player initiates his movement to leave the floor. I guess I assume that "establish"means also to "maintain" (mainly because of the Jake White principle of not moving) and I would construe backpeddling as not a legal guarding position. IMHO, it should be construed as a legal guarding position, but I do not believe most referees see it that way.

We need @ShockRef: to verify that I am not butchering the rule, but I believe establishing a legal guarding position means setting both feet. However, once established the defender can then move his feet to maintain it. The offensive point guard was like 20ft away when he started dribbling at Ron who was standing there (feet planted) waiting for the offensive player to approach him. When he got close he put his hands up in the air and started back peddling, so I would say that his defensive position was being maintained, however that may not be the case. @ShockRef:?

[EB 22]

Does anybody know if this game is available on Shockervision? I missed the game and would like to watch it.

[moshock]

Does anybody know if this game is available on Shockervision? I missed the game and would like to watch it.

I don't think it is. I've emailed the provider and haven't received a response yet. The last replay I can see is the SIU game from 2012.

[RoyalShock]

Does anybody know if this game is available on Shockervision? I missed the game and would like to watch it.

They didn't archive any games last year. Not sure if they will this season or not.

[TheYeti]

I am already scared of what is going to happen when John "Hollywood" Higgins comes to town with this new emphasis on fouls. That is all he needed, more reason to blow the whistle and be the center of attention and pain in our backside.

Indeed. I bet he has been to the emergency room four or five times by now, because like they say on TV, if the "arousal" lasts longer than four hours, seek medical attention.

[wsushox1]

Corner 3's Corner 3's

[CBB_Fan]

This is the way is should be, IMHO, but you left out the part about being "set" and not moving. RonBaker was backpeddleing and didn't stop before the player started this move to leave his feet. I've always complained (mostly to myself, because nobody else listens to me) that there should be a "principle of horizantalcality" for these situations. Where if the defender has inserted himself into the "direct path to the basket" in time, then it becomes the offensive player's obligation to avoid the contact by attempting another path. It is akin to the "principal of verticality" which is often spoken of but rarely applied in real-game situations, again IMHO.

The problem is that being "set" is NOT playing defense. Or at least, it should not be. By setting their feet the defender is removing themselves from the game and simply becoming an object. I believe that active defense should be rewarded as long as the defender does not deliberately initiate contact with the offensive player. To me it is silly to say that when a player attempts a shot the best defense is no defense, but when that same offensive player is dribbling up the sideline players are encouraging to move their feet and stay in front of their man.

As is, defenders are rewarded for jumping in front of offensive players right before they go into their shooting motion (though many times their "shot" is just a violent upward swing of their arms whose only aim is to hit a defender's arm). But when they backpedal and try not to touch the offensive player they are held responsible if the offensive player managed to initiate contact. The problem with this interpretation of the block/charge call (and with the interpretation of the new rules) is that they don't give defensive players a clear choice between "good" defense and "bad" defense.

For some reason, moving your feet is encouraged when the defender is guarding an opponent on the perimeter or in the backcourt, but when that same defender is guarding a player making a drive to the basket moving their feet means they aren't in legal guarding position. I think the rules would be much improved if they focused on rewarding defenders that move their feet without initiating contact in all scenarios, because as is the defender is at mercy to the what the offensive player does and to what the refs see regardless of what they try to do.