tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post2883512392435476853..comments2018-04-25T09:20:27.307-06:00Comments on UPA Rules Blog: What does "affected the play" mean anyway?Mortakaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-8095974140329554922010-08-09T13:30:36.678-06:002010-08-09T13:30:36.678-06:00What if the defender hadn't showered in a mont...What if the defender hadn't showered in a month and was counting on the downwind distraction strategy?<br /><br />What if it was another offense/defense pair that was picked and this receiver would have been distracted differently from his peripheral view?<br /><br />I certainly wouldn't suggest that any of these reasons (including the footfall distraction) are valid examples of affecting the play. <br /><br />I hope you weren't the defender making this claim, Dave.Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-88450404231694384272010-08-09T11:03:48.860-06:002010-08-09T11:03:48.860-06:00Question - I'm thinking in terms of "affe...Question - I'm thinking in terms of "affected the play" and picks. <br /><br />If defender was 9.9 feet away at time of pick and his guy was running full speed after burning defender, and the pass was perfect to his guy who catches it cleanly, is it legit for defender to send it back to the thrower based on the argument that defender's footsteps from 9.9 feet away would have affected the play by putting pressure on the guy who might have dropped it as a result?D.K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02280393945371346030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-13916015415672041612007-08-07T18:02:00.000-06:002007-08-07T18:02:00.000-06:00tico, first off, possession always needs to be dem...tico, first off, possession always needs to be demonstrated before a receiving foul ends up in a goal. <BR/><BR/>So in your example, if the foul was caused at the brick mark for a pass that ends up in the end-zone, the fouled player checks it in at the brick. <BR/><BR/>However, if the foul was caused inside the end-zone, the disc is checked in inside the e-z and then the thrower carries the disc to (and taps it down at) the e-z line and plays on from there.Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-71719974401415953342007-08-07T17:59:00.000-06:002007-08-07T17:59:00.000-06:00William, it's Defensive B's call as to whether it ...William, it's Defensive B's call as to whether it affected the play. If this player believes that the outcome of the play would have been meaningfully different---which may include that D-B might believe that D-A would not have flashed out to O-B and O-A would not have been open for the pass---then sure, they can state that the infraction affected the play and call for the disc to go back.Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-448845516395992742007-06-12T17:38:00.000-06:002007-06-12T17:38:00.000-06:00Wow. Way to make the PICK rule WAAAAAY more compl...Wow. Way to make the PICK rule WAAAAAY more complicated!!! Thanks! Instead of the call (which theoretically is definite and loud) being the point of reference for everything, now it's "acknowledgement" which seems more subjective. Regardless of how much I HATE THIS, here's a few scenarios I'm now curious about:<BR/><BR/>1) Let's say a pick is called at the beginning of the stack and a player cuts from the back well after the call is made and then the thrower acknowledges the pick BEFORE throwing. Does that receiver get to keep any space advantage they got between the call and play? It seems like they reset from acknowledgement and not from the violation.<BR/><BR/>2) If a pick is called and there are two stall counts made before the thrower acknowledges the call, does the stall count stay or go back? Concerning, concerning . . .<BR/><BR/>3) Let's say you have a dumbass on your team who NEVER hears pick calls (OK, maybe he's just always in the zone). Would it be bad spirited to keep cutting even though you KNOW there's a pick call and you KNOW the thrower hasn't acknowledged it? That seems to be gray spirited to me . . . based on the old rules it seems like everyone should stop and relay the call to end play as soon as possible, but now it's in the offense's benefit to keep playing while it's in the defense's benefit to scream in the thrower's face (instead of just his teammates) which can bring obvious spirit related consequences to more dense players. It's obviously in the wrong to not stop play as the thrower (if you really know that a pick was called), but what should offensive teammates do?<BR/><BR/>Sidenote: Although in the old rules it sucked to play against people who made the whisper calls, now it just sucks to play against people who have limited awareness because they get an advantage of the new NBA continuation rule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-50113004203710194972007-05-26T08:17:00.000-06:002007-05-26T08:17:00.000-06:00Quick question... the following example does or do...Quick question... the following example does or does not apply on a endzone pass? So if there is an uncontested foul on the receiver, but the receiver does NOT have possession of the disc it is NOT a goal. Right?<BR/><BR/>"We'll start with an easy one: A receiver starts his cut but is fouled by his defender. The thrower either doesn't realize there has been a foul and throws the disc anyway, or has already thrown the disc. The receiver feels that he would have had a play on the disc if he hadn't been fouled. Therefore he determines that the infraction affected the play, and the disc returns to the thrower.... unless the specific rule says otherwise, which in this case it does (according to XVI.H.3.b.2 Receiving Fouls, if the foul is uncontested the disc goes to the receiver at the spot of the infraction; if contested, it goes back to the thrower)."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15131305495679964442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-40507384850527505732007-05-16T11:07:00.000-06:002007-05-16T11:07:00.000-06:00How broadly can a player interpret "affected the p...How broadly can a player interpret "affected the play"? Here's an example....<BR/><BR/>Defender A is guarding offensive player A at the front of a vertical stack. Offensive player B makes a cut from the middle of the stack. Defensive player B is picked. Before defensive player B can call the pick defensive player A notices the open cutter (A) and flashes in the lane to stop the throw. Half a second later defensive player B calls pick. The thrower doesn't acknowledge the call and subsequently completes a pass to the now open offensive player A.<BR/><BR/>So, does defensive player A have grounds to contest the completed pass on the grounds that he wouldn't have poached had their not been a pick? Certainly his play was <I>affected</I> by the infraction. He would have prevented the throw to offensive player A had he not poached. Right?<BR/><BR/>-WilliamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-16383916614769577802007-04-18T06:50:00.000-06:002007-04-18T06:50:00.000-06:00A dangerous play is treated as a general foul, but...A dangerous play is treated as a general foul, but for the purpose of continuation, the disc goes to the infracted player if that player would have had a play on the disc absent the dangerous play(er) (because of the part of the dangerous play rule that says "no matter if/when the disc arrives"). <BR/><BR/>The dangerous play is the whole play, not just the contact that results from the play. The dangerous play itself is treated as a foul, not just the contact (which often is a foul by itself...). So it is a foul the moment the dangerous play starts (sort of retroactively). When the dangerous play starts before the disc is knocked away/caught (and the disc would have been catchable without the play, i.e., without the reckless player making any play on the disc), it clearly affected the play, and thus is treated as a receiving foul. If the disc was uncatchable anyways (to be determined by the fouled player), it is not a receiving foul but a general foul, and while here the outcome of the play is ambiguous, it's the src's intent that in this case the disc should go back to the thrower (we'll clarify this in 11.1!).PKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823652864226894547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-82043675486812049012007-04-08T17:02:00.000-06:002007-04-08T17:02:00.000-06:00Contact that occurs before the outcome of the play...Contact that occurs before the outcome of the play is determined (for example, a defender knocking into a receiver before the disc arrives) obviously "affected continued play," so a foul call is justified (by II.F,H), and also "affected the play," so the disc should go to the infracted player (in this example, the receiver) by the continuation rule (XVI.C.2.b.1).<BR/><BR/>Contact that occurs after the outcome of the play has been determined (e.g. a defender laying out, hitting the disc away, and a split second later making contact with the receiver) can be considered to have "affected continued play" if it results in the receiver falling down or otherwise being unable to continue playing, so a foul call might be justified. HOWEVER, if the disc was already knocked away such that the outcome of the play was decided, the contact did not affect "the play," and therefore even if a foul is called, the turnover should stand (by XVI.C.2.b.2). (Assuming the contact did not constitute a dangerous play- more on that coming.) According to XVI.C.3, it is up to the infracted player (in this case the receiver) to determine whether the foul affected the play (ie- did the contact occur before or after the defender hit the disc away? was the disc still catchable and did the contact prevent the receiver from making a second attempt on the disc, thereby affecting the play after all?).PKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823652864226894547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-20150489443071729082007-03-22T16:02:00.000-06:002007-03-22T16:02:00.000-06:00Where would the disc be put into play on a harmful...Where would the disc be put into play on a harmful endangerment call in mike's example? Back to the thrower?<BR/><BR/>And does this mean no more ticky-tacky foul calls on a D where, say, hands are entangled, after the D (again, barring harmful endangerment)?<BR/><BR/>(And note that I have called such ticky-tacky stuff on O as well (and been properly heckled).)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09319090392652005627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-70579693233872066212007-03-22T15:14:00.000-06:002007-03-22T15:14:00.000-06:00mike, I'd think that your example would depend on ...mike, I'd think that your example would depend on if the contact between the defender and receiver is considered dangerous or not. If the defender had to make a dangerous play in order to make the D, it would be a foul. But if it's just light contact, then no problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-56755337492577969162007-03-20T14:54:00.000-06:002007-03-20T14:54:00.000-06:00So does 'affected the play' apply to a situation w...So does 'affected the play' apply to a situation when a defender D's the disc, clearly smacking it away, making the disc uncatchable, but the momentum of his/her body hits the intended receiver, thus resulting in a foul call. Would this stand as a foul, even though the defender clearly made the disc uncatchable fractions of a second prior to making the questionable body contact? Or is it a non-foul and turnover as in the situation when the disc is thrown 5 feet overhead and uncatchable when the receiver is fouled? Situations like this arise all the time when the Defender gets the D but fouls the receiver on the follow-through.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14006166877252540714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-47044845949781981952007-03-20T07:43:00.001-06:002007-03-20T07:43:00.001-06:00Yes, that is correct. If a pick occurs, it is no l...Yes, that is correct. If a pick occurs, it is no longer relevant whether the pick occured before or after the throw- only whether it affected or did not affect the play. And the rules say explicitly that reacting to hearing the call doesn't count toward whether the infraction affected the play [XVI.K].<BR/><BR/>So hopefully people will get used to stopping only when the thrower stops play, not right when they hear a call.<BR/><BR/>That being said, obviously the thrower must stop play if he hears the pick called before the throw, and to ignore it is cheating. This rule encourages the marker to echo the pick call so that the thrower hears it and stops play.PKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823652864226894547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-52072910314600172692007-03-20T07:01:00.000-06:002007-03-20T07:01:00.000-06:00Just wondering if someone can confirm the followin...Just wondering if someone can confirm the following situation...<BR/><BR/>If a pick is called on Offensive Player A by Defensive Player B, but the thrower does not acknowledge the Pick call and throws a score to Offensive Player C, well away from the Pick call, does Player C's defender have any recourse if he stopped play and echoed the pick call? I know that you should never stop play on a pick as a defensive player, but people do sometimes. In this case, can Player C's defender claim that he was affected , if not by the infraction than at least by the call? <BR/><BR/>I am thinking that he cannot, and that the score stands, and that the defender will learn to play on, but I just wanted confirmation.lamarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10643562157814181702noreply@blogger.com