Chip Clark

Rules are different for a defender obtaining a legal position in the path of a player with the ball (no time & distance required), than they are for obtaining a legal position in the path of a player without the ball (time & distance are factors). That could be one possible reason for the confusion. Also, NBA has different guarding rules for when a player receives a pass inside the LDB vs. outside the LDB, and NCAA has no such LDB guarding rules. I’m having trouble remembering the Ant/Luka play, from a couple years back, so feel free to send it to me if you have it. You know I’ll give you my unbiased analysis of it. As for this Jirak/Chinyelu play though, think of it as a screening play. That may help since screening rules apply here. Jirak tries to delay/prevent Chinyelu from reaching a desired position, but in doing so, he jumps into his path. Both of Jirak’s feet appear to still be off the floor when initial contact occurs, so he’s still moving into the path upon contact, and has not even obtained a position on the floor prior to contact. This means he’s not in a legal position, and causes the contact. Attached is the entire NCAAM Screening Rule (Rule 4-35).

@OfficialChipC @JKirkCorbin @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial Well Ant caught a ball running full speed in the wcf and I was told he had enough room in 1 step to try to avoid contact. As Luka turned around at the last second. I’ll take your word on this one but he just blasted a guy as hard as he could in the middle of his back.

This was not called a 3-second violation on Florida. Rueben Chinyelu enters the lane at 7:02. He didn’t leave the lane before the shot went up at 6:54. That’s a bad missed call.

J Kirk, I’m not trying to rationalize anything. I’m simply providing the applicable rule interpretation. What you do with this information is up to you. I told you in my first reply that my take on this play would be controversial. That’s because I know most hoops fans struggle to comprehend how a player who just got trucked could be responsible for the contact, by rule. It really is this simple… If Jirak had not slid into the path of Chinyelu at the last second to cut him off, no contact would have occurred between the two. That’s it. That’s the whole ball game on this play. Have a nice day as well.

@OfficialChipC @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial You are trying to rationalize his out of control actions by saying he never had a chance to avoid the contact . He could & should have. It wasn't a basketball play in any way & its lucky he didnt hurt the Iowa player. Have a nice day.

I seriously doubt that, seeing as how I text him my analysis of this Chinyelu/Jirak play yesterday, and he agreed! I’m not even sure Jirak got his left foot down on the floor, to position himself on the floor in Chinyelu’s path, prior to contact. There was definitely not enough room for Chinyelu to try to avoid him by that time. So if a hypothetical Ant/Dort play happened exactly like this one, I’m certain Coach Nick would agree Dort is the one responsible for the contact, not Ant.

@OfficialChipC @JKirkCorbin @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial I’ve been told by coach Nick that this would be a foul on Ant because he had enough room to try to avoid him.

@sdskol1983 @JKirkCorbin @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial x.com/officialchipc/…

@OfficialChipC @JKirkCorbin @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial Can’t believe I’m back in this discussion after BBallbreakdown gaslit me about the ant play in the 2024 wcf for a few days straight lol.

Let’s frame this in a way that will be easier for you to support & understand. 😉 Let’s say Randle puts up a 3pt attempt. Ant crashes the basket by running rapidly down the middle of the lane in a straight line path, for a potential put-back dunk attempt (We’ve seen him do this many times). Now as Ant is entering the lane, Lu Dort throws his body into Ant’s straight line path at the last second to cut him off, and doesn’t give Ant an opportunity to avoid contact. Ant plows right through him as a result. Is it really your opinion that Ant should be called for a Loose Ball Foul in this situation, or even worse, a Flagrant Foul (dirty play)? I’m asking for future reference. 😁

Saying “move out of the way” implies he was already blocking the path of the opponent running up the floor. He clearly wasn’t. He made a decision to leave his legally obtained spot on the floor, and jump slide into the path of a rapidly moving opponent at the last second, to cut him off. If B27 had stayed on his spot, no contact would have occurred. B27 is responsible for this contact.

@ucf_problems This is Offensive Goaltending by Bitadze, so no points can be scored. (Pic 1: NBA Rule 11 - Section I - i) Also, for a FG to be scored, the ball must remain in or pass through the net. Ball in basket, and below the ring level is not the rule. (Pic 2: NBA Rule 5 - Section I - a)

Magic just got hosed on this play Originally they called it a bucket. Then they said no bucket but foul on McConnell and 2 shots. Then the final ruling was Pacers ball The ball went past the rim it should have counted

@JKirkCorbin @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial

I’ll just answer them for you. • If you are running rapidly up the court, in a straight line path that is not blocked by an opponent, and at the last second an opponent slides into your path mid-stride, then… 1) You WILL run into the opponent who stepped into your path, and 2) You WILL brace for contact. • In that situation, when contact inevitably occurs, the opponent who slid into your path without giving you sufficient time & distance to stop or change direction to avoid contact is the one responsible for the contact, by rule. Now to address your claims: Chinyelu was running up the floor in a straight line path. He’s entitled to run on that straight line (at any speed he wants) unless an opponent legally blocks his path by obtaining a legal position in it. Since Chinyelu is not in possession of the ball, by rule Jirak must provide sufficient “time & distance” for Chinyelu to stop or change direction to avoid contact, after he obtains a position on the floor, in Chinyelu’s path. He most certainly did not do that. The video I attached below is indisputable proof of that. I can see how you would think Chinyelu was out of control, due to the hard contact. And yes, Jirak did turn his back to block out, but in doing so, he absolutely moved into Chinyelu’s path (turns his back and jump slides to his left to cut him off). However, by the time Jirak obtains a position on the floor in Chinyelu’s path, Chinyelu is not even afforded a single step to avoid contact, prior to contact. He makes no attempt to miss Jirak because he literally doesn’t have enough time or distance to do so. The only thing he had time to do was brace for contact. As soon as Chinyelu saw Jirak starting to slide into his path, he tucked his right arm to his chest to brace for imminent contact. Also, he did not lower his shoulder. If you watch closely, once Jirak slides into his path, he bends forward and sticks his butt out (seated position) to “box out”. The initial point of contact is his butt to Chinyelu’s right knee/thigh as he’s trying to plant that right foot. This butt to thigh contact somewhat causes Chinyelu’s knee to buckle, and his upper body to bend forward at the hips. What you think is a lowered shoulder (shoulder to back contact) is actually back to back contact. All this to say…. If a foul is to be called on this play, it would be a foul on Jirak. The officials decided not to call a foul on him though, since that contact had no effect on the play (ball was going OoB, and neither of these two players had a chance to get to the loose ball). They basically ruled it as incidental contact. Hope this analysis and video, helps clarify the rules, and what actually happened on this play.

Good question, J Kirk. So, I’m well aware that my take on this Chinyelu/Jirak play is going to be pretty controversial for most hoops fans, but please allow me to set up my take by asking you the following question(s)… 1) If you are running rapidly up the court, in a straight line path that is not block by an opponent, and at the last second an opponent steps into your path mid-stride, what do you think will happen, and what do you think you will do? 2) And in that situation, when contact inevitably occurs, who should be responsible for the contact, by rule? You, or the opponent who stepped into your path without giving you sufficient time & distance to stop or change direction to avoid contact?

@JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial @OfficialChipC How about the crack back block he made right before half that wasn't called or even mentioned by the announcers?? It was a flagrant 1 at a minimum & surprised the Iowa player wasn't hurt. #9 should have fouled out before halftime. And I am not an iowa fan.

After a made basket, the window for a TO request by the scoring team technically closes when the throw-in starts (Pic 1 - NCAAM Rule 5-15.1.a). -> The throw-in starts when the ball is “at the disposal” of the team entitled to the throw-in (Pic 2 - NCAAM Rule 7-6.3). -> The ball is “at the disposal” when it is “available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count” (Pic 3 - NCAAM Rule 4-11.1.d). On the play in question, the covering official technically had not started the throw-in count, but that’s because the ball was inbounded as soon as the thrower-in was completely OoB.

@OfficialChipC @WorstRefEvr I said if Herb had run toward the lead ref he probably would have been granted the TO. My question is by rule... when does the right to be granted a TO end... is the ball in the inbounder's hands (even tho he not out of bounds yet) is that technically the end of the request time?

The clock starting late here drives me bananas for Santa Clara. Review it and manually time it! Hell of a shot though

@buckets_timmy @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial Excellent GIF. Haha

@OfficialChipC @JZhang_19 @BadCallOfficial

@BadCallOfficial @JZhang_19 *all that’s needed

In NCAAM, to cleanse the lane, all these needed is one foot touching outside the lane, and the other foot not touching in the lane. Also, you rarely see 3 Sec Violations called unless it’s SUPER obvious, and the player gained an obvious advantage. On this play, it’s not obvious the player in question was in the lane for 3 consecutive seconds, and he certainly did not gain an advantage. The ball was never passed to him, so splitting hairs on this would just put the crew in a box for the rest of the game. If you call this a 3 Sec Violation, then both teams will be begging for it called on the other team all game long. I support this no-call.

In NCAAM, to cleanse the lane you just have to have one foot touching outside the lane, and the other foot not touching inside the lane. This one is close. Also, you rarely see 3 seconds called unless it’s SUPER obvious, and an obvious advantage was gained in the process. On this play, the ball was never passed to the player in question, so splitting hairs on whether he cleansed the lane or not is not wise. Plus, if you call this a 3 Sec Violation, it really puts the crew on a box, because then everyone would be asking for a 3 Sec Violation called on the other team every single possession. I personally approve of this no-call.

@BadCallOfficial @OfficialChipC does NCAAM have the rule that the 3 second will reset if one foot out of paint?

@DSSPY11 @danddychiggins @MarvinSexton15 @PolymarketSport The SC reset to 20 seconds was correct. If you’re interested, a PDF of the NCAA Men’s 🏀 Rulebook is available for free at ncaapublications.com. (NCAAM Rule 2-11.6.d.8)

@danddychiggins @MarvinSexton15 @PolymarketSport Correct

I haven’t commented on it yet. Personally, with all that is going on at that point in the game, and the checklist the refs have to go through in that late game situation to prepare for the next play (1. Check game clock to ensure it stopped properly after made basket, 2. Peep BOTH benches to see if either HC is requesting a TO and that no one came off the bench, 3. Get into position for next play, 4. Refocus on players in each of their respective coverage areas), I feel it’s unrealistic to expect this delayed TO request to be granted there. If coach had requested the TO as soon as the ball passed through the net, I believe at least 2 of the officials (possibly all 3) would’ve seen it & granted it. He waited 2 seconds to request the TO though. By that time, the UK player already had the ball with one foot OoB, about to inbound it, and the officials had probably already checked “TO request” off their mental checklist when neither coach immediately requested one. The time between when coach first requested the TO until the throw-in pass is released, is maybe a half second. Even if we see the initial TO request, we still have to confirm it was legally requested prior to the ball being “at the disposal” of the thrower-in. So by the time we transfer our eyes from coach to inbounder, to confirm the ball is not yet as his disposal, he would’ve already released the throw-in pass. Half a second isn’t a lot of time to process all that. And to your point, even with this delayed TO request, if coach would’ve run toward the New Trail on the end line to request it, it very likely would’ve been granted. Tough play in a major moment.

@OfficialChipC Have you commented on the time out request? I'm seeing that everywhere. Maybe it's granted if he signals to the ref on the endline instead of chasing the new lead up the court.

I’m sorta with ya on that, unless you’re categorizing this Booker/Fox play as a “ticky tack foul”, in which case I would disagree. This foot-to-foot contact clearly disrupted Bookers SQRB (Speed, Quickness, Rhythm, & Balance), and affected his ability to attempt the heave. Also, we rarely see any contact on half court heaves, so that’s another reason we rarely see fouls calls in those situations. I do remember a few fouls called on half court heaves over the last couple seasons though, so it’s not like it never happens when there is contact that affects the offensive players ability to complete the heave.

@OfficialChipC @PNackk70314 @slendershaq @SpursReporter I dont think he was foul baiting but since you want consistency so bad I think the league is consistent enough in the sense that ticky tack fouls on half court heaves are very rarely ever called

Ok, this is about as close a camera angle as one can get to Devin Booker’s “De’Aaron Fox’s foot got in my way and the refs didn't see it” heave. (🎥: via tiktok user hannah.colemannnn)

This is a “time imminent” play, and the clock is about to go to zeros with his team down by 1. What else is Booker supposed to do here but attempt a heave in hopes of winning the game? Respectfully, this isn’t even close to a ridiculous attempt, or foul baiting. He didn’t try to step on Fox’s foot. He tried to plant both his feet on the floor to jump, and attempt a legitimate heave, but couldn’t do so cleanly because on Fox’s foot planted in his path. Booker didn’t abnormally launch or lean into Fox, nor did he try to seek out contact with him in any way! This is a legitimate shot attempt, in which Booker was fouled.

@OfficialChipC @PNackk70314 @slendershaq @SpursReporter Get what youre saying but foul calls from ridiculous attempts like these will almost never be called. I remember jokic trying to bait a foul on a heave too