Guard your yard!

[vilehoopster]

I've watched and rewatched that last play, and I have to say that A.J. rattled the rim; it was shaking and a ref has to call that goaltending. The rim was shaking as the ball approached the rim, that has to be called goaltending. With that said....

P.J., guard your yard!!!

I went to a clinic long ago, back when Roy Williams was still at Kansas; that's how long ago it was. Anyway, Roy said that in man-to-man defense, the defender has a yard (three feet) to his left and right that he has to defend, should his man drive to the basket. If the driving player has to go a yard or more around you, that should give your teammates enough time to come over and help out: He called it "guard your yard." If you as defender can't make the driver go over, at least, a yard, that is on you, not on your defensive teammates.

Look at the tape, P.J. isn't even between Yogi and the basket at all as Yogi makes his move to drive, not at all How is that possible when you're guarding their leading scorer? I think P.J. was worried about the pick being set on his left, and he over-reacted shading to his left. What he did was give Yogi a direct line straight to the basket, giving A.J. no time to get around the basket. In fact, that near block was a great athletic play. A.J. was three feet outside the lane on the other side when Yogi made his move, amazing that he got the ball at all. Seriously, watch how quickly A.J. reacts to get that ball. People who don't think A.J. can play in the NBA should watch that play; at the very least, he is quick and athletic enough to play there. But with that said...

P.J. has to give his teammates more time to help. He needs to guard his yard.

 

[BoilerDeac]

Definitely some good points.

The distance Hammons covered on that block was pretty damn incredible.

PJ may feel like he had to cheat a bit in order to stay with Yogi, and over committed; with that being said, I don't really blame him. I mean, we all knew PJ would struggle to guard Yogi. I think Hill would have been better suited to take on the Yogi challenge, but his lack of shooting inhibits the already frustratingly predictable offense of this team, at least in the half court.

 

[Do Dah Day]

I've heard the "Guard your yard" saying too. It's a good one. Basketball is a game of making really quick decisions and hoping more are right than wrong (like shading too far left anticipating the pick ... would have been great if that's what they did... and getting everyone involved in every play, both D and O. We hear Dads yelling at kids not to let the guy they're guarding beat them. Reality is, they will get beat all the time, as you say, just help you teammates have time to help you.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I've watched and rewatched that last play, and I have to say that A.J. rattled the rim; it was shaking and a ref has to call that goaltending. The rim was shaking as the ball approached the rim, that has to be called goaltending. With that said....

P.J., guard your yard!!!

I went to a clinic long ago, back when Roy Williams was still at Kansas; that's how long ago it was. Anyway, Roy said that in man-to-man defense, the defender has a yard (three feet) to his left and right that he has to defend, should his man drive to the basket. If the driving player has to go a yard or more around you, that should give your teammates enough time to come over and help out: He called it "guard your yard." If you as defender can't make the driver go over, at least, a yard, that is on you, not on your defensive teammates.

Look at the tape, P.J. isn't even between Yogi and the basket at all as Yogi makes his move to drive, not at all How is that possible when you're guarding their leading scorer? I think P.J. was worried about the pick being set on his left, and he over-reacted shading to his left. What he did was give Yogi a direct line straight to the basket, giving A.J. no time to get around the basket. In fact, that near block was a great athletic play. A.J. was three feet outside the lane on the other side when Yogi made his move, amazing that he got the ball at all. Seriously, watch how quickly A.J. reacts to get that ball. People who don't think A.J. can play in the NBA should watch that play; at the very least, he is quick and athletic enough to play there. But with that said...

P.J. has to give his teammates more time to help. He needs to guard his yard.

I know Roy's no math major, but Wouldn't the phrase be, "Guard your 2 yards?"

 

[Statey]

I tend to agree about the goaltending. I read the rule as posted in another thread. I don't know if it's goaltending as defined in the rules because of the funny wording of the ball being "within the backboard" or something like that in one of the later sub-sections. Regardless, I've seen both Purdue and IU fans argue each way - yes, some Purdue fans think it was right call while some IU fans think it was bogus... I don't think we need another thread with the fake posters rehashing their interpretations. (talking about you meatpants and honey badger).

But I think if you said to the average fan that a player hit the rim while the ball was in the air, and the backboard/rim was shaking, I think most people would say that should be called a violation based on the spirit of the basket interference rules, albeit perhaps not the way it is actually written. To me, the fact that AJ blocked the shot afterwards is why I can't buy into the "well the shot wasn't affected because he blocked it" argument. If the violation (in spirit, at least) occurs before the block, the block becomes irrelevant because the play is dead after that; whatever occurs after is of no consequence.

Agree on AJ making a great cover in getting the block and about Yogi getting around his guy. At that stage of the game, there was a 99.9% chance that Yogi was taking the shot. You just can't let him get by that easily, even with the best shot blocker in the league standing behind you.

 

[depthcharge623]

I think most people would say that should be called a violation based on the spirit of the basket interference rules, albeit perhaps not the way it is actually written.

Seriously? The "spirit" of the rule is that the defender cannot manipulate the rim to interfere with the shot. AJ's contact was incidental and did not in ANY WAY affect the shot. It's not like he hung onto the rim to swat the ball, or that the ball got to the rim and would have gone in if not for the vibration caused by AJ hitting it. The two events (the incidental contact with the rim and the block) were completely independent. So both based on the "spirit" and the "words" it was a bogus call.

 

[boiler-deuce]

Seriously? The "spirit" of the rule is that the defender cannot manipulate the rim to interfere with the shot. AJ's contact was incidental and did not in ANY WAY affect the shot. It's not like he hung onto the rim to swat the ball, or that the ball got to the rim and would have gone in if not for the vibration caused by AJ hitting it. The two events (the incidental contact with the rim and the block) were completely independent. So both based on the "spirit" and the "words" it was a bogus call.

^^ this is exactly correct. The rule is so you cannot hit the rim and interfere with what the ball is going to do otherwise. It only takes a bit of common sense here. AJ blocked the ball on the way up, the rim contact had ZERO to do with the clear block. It's similar to, you can't hit a shooter on the arm or hand while shooting...UNLESS you block the shot in the first place... I think what we have is, someone said once that hitting the rim was interference, and everyone has just ran with the interpretation. That's why I took the time to look it up because initially I thought it was the right call. Do some research...don't be emotional....and be a realist. I say this all the time, and get flack for being a realist and being extremely honest.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I know Roy's no math major, but Wouldn't the phrase be, "Guard your 2 yards?"

Indeed, I believe Roy was an African-American Studies major.

 

[VanHoosier]

People who say AJ can't play in the NBA don't say it because he lacks the athleticism or size...

 

[Statey]

Seriously? The "spirit" of the rule is that the defender cannot manipulate the rim to interfere with the shot. AJ's contact was incidental and did not in ANY WAY affect the shot. It's not like he hung onto the rim to swat the ball, or that the ball got to the rim and would have gone in if not for the vibration caused by AJ hitting it. The two events (the incidental contact with the rim and the block) were completely independent. So both based on the "spirit" and the "words" it was a bogus call.

I appreciate what you're saying. Maybe I skipped over how I was thinking about this in my head, but when I said "spirit" I meant what the basket interference rule is designed to do, which is to discourage and penalize for - drumroll please - basket interference. The referees don't want defenders (or non-shooting offensive players) to be making contact with the rim and/or backboard during game play.

Regarding your point... In this particular case, the ball was in the air when the rim contact happened. As you pointed out, AJ blocked it. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't see how the block negates what would otherwise be called if the shot hadn't been block. The rim contact happened first, so if it were a valid violation, the play would be dead then and the block would is a non-issue for this discussion. Stated another way, the block couldn't negate a violation if the violation occurred first.

To me, it comes down to a question the spirit/intent of the rule, which is to disallow rim/net/backboard contact that could potentially impact a shot while it's in the air. That's all I was saying. I don't know how anyone can say that had AJ missed the ball altogether that the bumping of the rim and the vibration it caused would have "worn off" by the time the shot got to the rim. That's not unlike IU fans saying that the ball was corralled by Hartman, which was after the whistle... how could anyone know whether he would have really been the one to get there first? But regarding the vibration having "worn off", if there was some permissible subjectivity in this, how could referees be expected to rule on that? That'd be virtually impossible to tell in real time, and like goaltending, most assuredly would not be reviewable either (how would you measure this since mild vibration may not even be visible?). It's one more thing refs would have to guess on.

I know it's a harsh outcome and one that was to the team's detriment, but I'm trying to look at it as if it were different teams involved. Like I said earlier, I don't know that the call was "right" based on the rule, but on the other hand, I don't believe the call violated the intent/spirit of the rule. It just so happened to have occurred with under 10 seconds to play and IU trying to one-up Purdue for the worst blown game in the B1G this year.

 

[boiler-deuce]

I appreciate what you're saying. Maybe I skipped over how I was thinking about this in my head, but when I said "spirit" I meant what the basket interference rule is designed to do, which is to discourage and penalize for - drumroll please - basket interference. The referees don't want defenders (or non-shooting offensive players) to be making contact with the rim and/or backboard during game play.

Regarding your point... In this particular case, the ball was in the air when the rim contact happened. As you pointed out, AJ blocked it. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't see how the block negates what would otherwise be called if the shot hadn't been block. The rim contact happened first, so if it were a valid violation, the play would be dead then and the block would is a non-issue for this discussion. Stated another way, the block couldn't negate a violation if the violation occurred first.

To me, it comes down to a question the spirit/intent of the rule, which is to disallow rim/net/backboard contact that could potentially impact a shot while it's in the air. That's all I was saying. I don't know how anyone can say that had AJ missed the ball altogether that the bumping of the rim and the vibration it caused would have "worn off" by the time the shot got to the rim. That's not unlike IU fans saying that the ball was corralled by Hartman, which was after the whistle... how could anyone know whether he would have really been the one to get there first? But regarding the vibration having "worn off", if there was some permissible subjectivity in this, how could referees be expected to rule on that? That'd be virtually impossible to tell in real time, and like goaltending, most assuredly would not be reviewable either (how would you measure this since mild vibration may not even be visible?). It's one more thing refs would have to guess on.

I know it's a harsh outcome and one that was to the team's detriment, but I'm trying to look at it as if it were different teams involved. Like I said earlier, I don't know that the call was "right" based on the rule, but on the other hand, I don't believe the call violated the intent/spirit of the rule. It just so happened to have occurred with under 10 seconds to play and IU trying to one-up Purdue for the worst blown game in the B1G this year.

Hammons making contact....did not interfere with the shot. The shot was blocked. It had no impact of the shot. It was blocked. Period. Had the rim been shaking or backboard rocking...yeah, like that ever happens...and it would have mad an impact on the shot, then the call would be basket interference. You are making this so much more complicated than it is. Even if that shot does not get blocked, nothing was shaking or rocking, and would not have meant anything to the shot. And, to even act as if anyone, including you, knew Hammons hit the rim is a joke. Ted blew the call. I've read the rules now, and posted them where amazingly few seem to have the ability to comprehend them. It's not rocket science. The rule is for hitting the rim or backboard in a manner to affect the shot. This was not the case. The shot was....hello? BLOCKED. All else is irrelevant. The ball never made it to the rim for anything to have been affected. It's speculation to say otherwise. It was a bullshit call and Ted blew it.

 

[depthcharge623]

The original call was goal-tending anyways, not basket interference. So the rim is really a non-factor.