icallfouls While my initial post may not have stated it, you misunderstood my meaning. So I take the responsibility for that. Not my deal to just make up stuff that isn't there. My meaning was along the lines of slight contact, not no contact.
just another ref icallfouls wroteWhile my initial post may not have stated it, you misunderstood my meaning. So I take the responsibility for that. Not my deal to just make up stuff that isn't there. My meaning was along the lines of slight contact, not no contact. The principle is still the same. If it isn't a block, the flop doesn't make it a block.
Camron Rust just another ref wroteThe principle is still the same. If it isn't a block, the flop doesn't make it a block. So you're calling the T? If not, why not? That is what it really is.
Adam Camron Rust wroteSo you're calling the T? If not, why not? That is what it really is. If there's slight contact, I'll just consider it anticipation rather than faking. Either a no-call or a charge. But anticipation doesn't make it a block.
just another ref Camron Rust wroteSo you're calling the T? If not, why not? That is what it really is. Calling a T is an option. Calling a block because of a flop is not.
Camron Rust just another ref wroteCalling a T is an option. Calling a block because of a flop is not. When there is contact (as is the case in the point under discussion) it is always an option.
just another ref Camron Rust wroteWhen there is contact (as is the case in the point under discussion) it is always an option. It's an option whether there is contact or not. Anything the official chooses to do is an option, but this one is not supported by rule.
Adam Camron Rust wroteWhen there is contact (as is the case in the point under discussion) it is always an option. I'm not seeing what the defender does wrong here. Slight contact, defender falls back, but maintains LGP. Why a block?
Camron Rust Snaqwells wroteI'm not seeing what the defender does wrong here. Slight contact, defender falls back, but maintains LGP. Why a block? Contact enough to cause that reaction between the bodies and the offense did cause it, then the defender did (or at least that is the way you can sell it).
Adam Camron Rust wroteContact enough to cause that reaction between the bodies and the offense did cause it, then the defender did. Then we're picturing this differently. I see what would be an obvious charge mitigated by the defender bailing. Bracing or falling backwards in anticipation is expressly allowed, so I don't understand a block call.