|
This post doesn't require a replay, but it is probably "The quintessential block-charge play".
Reading the post I'm assuming that the official and the coach are agreeing that A1 has started their try motion and B1 took a spot in A1's path facing A1 with both feet on the floor after A1 starts their try but before they are airborne. I'm going to take the "facing and two feet on the floor" assumption because the post said established position and the coach wasn't really arguing against this.
The real discussion point is whether you believe a player must get this position before a player starts their motion on a try or before they are airborne.
mick.... 4-23 (Definition of guarding - legally!) clearly states in article 4 that when guarding an opponent with the ball (does not distinguish between dribbling, shooting or whatever else they want to try with it), no time or distance is required and if the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.
I truly believe that this coach, and most others, as well as players, feel that if the offensive player has started their try and committed to jumping into a spot, that the defender needs to be there in enough time for the offensive player to avoid doing it.
I have had a coach say to me "I agree that he was in position before my guy left the floor but he wasn't there before the shot was started". I just reply "Thanks for agreeing with me.".
BktBallRef.... I definitely agree with you that this is rarely called correctly and would suggest that many no-calls are made in this scenario because the official is caught like a deer in headlights thinking that the defender got position before the shooter was airborne but the shooter had already commited to jumping to that spot.
This is the correct PC foul call that when it is made, there's an official watching the game that says "that was a great call but I'm not sure I would have made it."
|