Blarge alert!!!

[GoodwillRef]

Officials: Jim Burr, Doug Shows, Bryan Kersey
Technical fouls: TENNESSEE VOLUNTEERS-None. GONZAGA BULLDOGS-None.
Attendance: 3914
Score by Periods 1st 2nd Total
TENNESSEE VOLUNTEERS.......... 31 43 - 74
GONZAGA BULLDOGS.............. 35 48 - 83

Pretty darn good crew.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So a defender can just slide underneath a moving and/or dribbling opponent and as long as he is somewhat in front of him its an offensive foul? That just doesn't make good sense to me. Sorry.

If the defender has LGP, then yes. It's a basic of officiating basketball.

Edited to clarify - you're "slide underneath" comment is not a quality one. If the defender can get to a position where the contact is in the torso, then obviously he "slid" there before the offensive player got there. And if that happens, it's a PC foul if the defender had established LGP.

[Scrapper1]

Not coincidentally, I'm sure, this was forwarded to me by my D3 association:

I attended 2 games in person and watched numerous games on TV from Thursday through Sunday evening. Please pass along the following observations to officials who work in your leagues.

1. On a BLARGE, where one official signals a block and the other official clearly signals a player control foul, the ball is awarded to the team in control, and there is NO RESET of the shot clock.
This play is covered in the 2009 case book on page 69, A.R. 172. Please note, that this play differs from a BLARGE involving a block and a charge (player A has released the ball for a try and runs over a defender).
My last thought on this play is that the mechanics book clearly states that the Lead has primary coverage for this play (p. 42) BUT, it would be a benefit to the C if the Lead would raise a fist in the air as he signals the foul so that the C can see that the Lead has a call on the play.

2. I see too many instances where we are not allowing the shooter to finish a try he started, and instead, we are ruling "no try", that the foul occurred before the try started. See Rule book p. 84, Section 69, Art. 3, for a review of when a try starts.

3. Much better job of managing time outs.

4. I am working on posting additional plays on eofficials.com . They ought to be "up" by Wednesday or Thursday.


John W. Adams

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Once LGP is established, you do not need to continue facing the opponent to maintain it.

4-23-1: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."


In the play at hand, what I see is the defender leaning backward as he slides into the path of the dribbler. At contact, the defender's feet are straddling the offensive player. As far as I'm concerned, this defender did not "get there first,"
and this would have been a block whether the dribbler had gone airborne or not.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-23-1: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."


In the play at hand, what I see is the defender leaning backward as he slides into the path of the dribbler. At contact, the defender's feet are straddling the offensive player. As far as I'm concerned, this defender did not "get there first,"
and this would have been a block whether the dribbler had gone airborne or not.

I'm still trying to figure out how the defender could be contacted in the torso if he didn't get there first? Is there a rule against leaning backwards? Is that when an offensive player puts his leg between a defensive players legs (hence, causing the defensive player to "straddle" the offensive player) that it constituted illegal activity on the defender's part?

He got there first. The problem was that he wasn't there when A1 went airborne.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I'm still trying to figure out how the defender could be contacted in the torso if he didn't get there first? Is there a rule against leaning backwards? Is that when an offensive player puts his leg between a defensive players legs (hence, causing the defensive player to "straddle" the offensive player) that it constituted illegal activity on the defender's part?

He got there first. The problem was that he wasn't there when A1 went airborne.

4-45-6: A defender may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a foul.

Sounds a lot like a description of this play to me.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-45-6: A defender may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a foul.

Sounds a lot like a description of this play to me.

I guess we're seeing different plays. The defender doesn't belly up at all - but rather leans backwards. Those are different things.

[rockyroad]

"Bellying up" and leaning backwards to avoid taking a shot in the face are two entirely differnt things and in no way should be used to judge whether a collision is a block or a PC foul. There is no restriction on leaning backwards when one is about to get run over.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

There is no restriction on leaning backwards when one is about to get run over.

True if he had been there waiting for the contact. That was not the case here.
A position on the court reaches from floor to ceiling. At contact of this play, I do not see that this defender had established a spot in the path of the dribbler.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True if he had been there waiting for the contact. That was not the case here.
A position on the court reaches from floor to ceiling. At contact of this play, I do not see that this defender had established a spot in the path of the dribbler.

That would be why pretty much everyone on this topic has said it was a block. Not because the defender was leaning back, but because he wasn't there in time.

The C called a PC (in my opinion) because this was a secondary defender jumping in there and the C didn't get a good look at the whole thing...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

That would be why pretty much everyone on this topic has said it was a block. Not because the defender was leaning back, but because he wasn't there in time.

Agreed. I'm saying that leaning back is an attempt to distort the appearance of getting there in time. Someone earlier objected to the use of this description, but, yes, he "slid under him" to some degree.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Not even close.

Also Burr's call, as it was a secondary defender.

Agree that C was in poor position - he likely did not have a good look at how late the defender was.

I am a little late to this party, but the defender came out of the C's primary and the L (Burr) was working strong side. He "pinched the paint" as the officials are told to do and made a call that is more of a secondary call for the L.

Now having said all that, I think he was the one that got it right. Kid had LGP, slid (huge base...no longer in position).

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. I'm saying that leaning back is an attempt to distort the appearance of getting there in time. Someone earlier objected to the use of this description, but, yes, he "slid under him" to some degree.

I like "slid under" better than "leaning back"...one is not legal, and one is.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I like "slid under" better than "leaning back"...one is not legal, and one is.

I would say one is a part of the other. The defender leans back in order to slide under.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Now having said all that, I think he was the one that got it right. Kid had LGP, slid (huge base...no longer in position).

This is what I saw. He stuck his right knee out causing contact. In fact, looking at it again I don't think he ever established LGP.