[BryanV21]

Why even say the "weak call" part?

"There wasn't a lot of contact, but it was enough to cause the opponent to violate. I'm not going to penalize the opponent for violating, when he wouldn't have done so without the slight push."

BTW...

1) Push, for reasons described above.

2) I initially had a charge, as the defender looked set a step and a half before the dribbler made contact. And after further viewing, I still have that. The defender may have oversold it a bit, but there was enough contact to justify the call.

3) I initially had a block, as the defender never seemed to get set. I see him moving right up until contact... which is made to look worse by the fact he leans back well before contact is made. And after looking at it a few times, and in slow motion, I have the same thing. However, to add, the defender steps towards the dribbler after the dribbler passes his primary defender. If the secondary defender had merely stepped sideways into the dribblers path, and got set (both feet down and straight up in verticality), then a charge. But he doesn't do that.

In regards to verticality... does losing verticality lead to a block call? Or is verticality only used in terms of illegal contact of the arm? Because when contact is made the defender is leaning back enough where he's no longer "in the tube of verticality". I mean, I think of a defender that has verticality as being in a tube, sort of like the "virtual plane of glass" that a defender on an in-bounds play can't break through.

One more thing... isn't there something about a defender leaning back during a block/charge play? Something like putting the offensive player in a dangerous position, so that he could land wrong and get hurt? I don't remember reading it ever, but it rings some kind of bell.