Two Block/Charge Plays (Video)
 

Blocks? Charges? One of each?

Blocks or Charges?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XBr1tilXa2I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

First instinct in both cases..."block". Both defenders appeared to move into ball handlers...no LGP in ether case. Now I'll go back and rewind it a few times and see if I feel any different.

I go with Block, Charge

Charge and Charge!

MTD, Sr.

I have both plays as PC fouls. In #1 the BH/D never gets head and shoulders past the defender, meaning the onus is on the BH/D to avoid contact. Same deal for #2, assuming there was contact.

In #2 I'm assuming there was a turnover and the new L got stuck but he still needed to bust it to get to the end line. It appears he made up his mind - or his legs made up his mind for him - that he wasn't going to get to the end line in time about two steps over the division line.

Of course, his physical condition looks much better than that of the new T. I'm sure it sounds like I'm trying to hate but as a guy who shed 45 lbs. since the start of 2013 I'm speaking from experience. It's hard officiating 17-year-old when you're carrying too much baggage.

+infinity

charge, charge.

in each instance i ask myself what did the defense do wrong? nothing.

Both the contacts were straight through the chest and neither involved a player going airborne so looked like defense got to the spot first and had lgp.

PC and PC.

Although in the second clip, I'm not certain, becuase of the camera angle, how much contact there was. If there was some embellishment, I can see a "play-on" no-call.

First one looks like a block. The defender is coming towards the ball handler at the time of contact.

The second one looks like a PC mostly, but I cannot tell if the defender is going forward to the ball handler or moving sideways. But it appears to be PC for the most part.

Peace

Play 1 is a bad angle, but that looks like a block to me, no LGP as the defender was still sliding into offensive player at contact.

Play 2 looks like a PC, assuming there was sufficient contact.

Block. Charge

JRut, looks like the defender's right foot is moving backwards at point of contact, no?


Regardless of whether you rule block or PC, what does "sliding into" mean?

I looks to me like he is coming forward towards the opponent. Now I said looks like as to suggest it is possible he is not. But the angle and the way he falls is also suspect. And I am one that usually defaults to PC fouls in these situations. I am not dismissing your point, I just do not see what you are seeing.

Peace

Play 1: Charge

Play 2: Charge

Play 1 is a tough play cuz it's pretty high for the Lead to call (who probably has the best idea of the defenders LGP), so Trail has to get it. I really like how Trail closed down so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Play 2 is tough to see from our angle how much the offensive player goes through the defender. I could see a no-call but maybe the offensive player uses his left arm there where we can't see. Wish the Lead could have made it to the endline to accept the play but I'm actually more concerned with Trail's extra baggage. :eek:

Play 1: Bad angle but it looks like a block.
Play 2: Charge!

You know what it means; he is moving laterally in an attempt to maintain LGP but doesn't stay in front of the offensive player. Plus his feet aren't "set" :p

Trouble maker... :p

#1 Block. B1 tries beating A1 to a spot but contact occurs before B1 established LGP.

#2 Charge. If these two plays happened in sequence, it is possible L went block to stay consistent with play #1, especially if he considered it a 50/50 play.

Uhmmmm...I'm thinking they were not in sequence since both were called against white and one was at each end of the court. Probably two different halves don't you think?

Ah, good catch! Then less reason to have gotten the second one wrong.... ;)

Question.

In play 1, it seems to me that the C has a great, or should have a great look at this play. Any thoughts on him with a whistle. I know it's from the trails primary, any thoughts?

C might be able To see the displacement but I doubt he would know if the defender is legal or not. Plus the play is on the other side of the lane, this is Trail's primary.

I don't think the C's look would actually be that great. He had 3 players pretty much in the line between his spot and the spot of the foul. Even without those players, the play was outside the paint on the other side. Not sure he should have even been looking there.

Generally, it is very hard to accurately judge movement that is going directly towards or away from your position when that movement is the critical element. Looking through it diagonally or from behind/front is better for lateral movement.

The C's position was actually the worst for seeing if the defender made it into the path or not or if the defender's knee was extended. The T and the L both have much better angles to cover the movement involved in this play. The C might have seen forward movement but I don't believe that was what happened in this play.

Even if it was a clear look with the right angles, not a chance. It wasn't better than the T's.

Really? B1 never had two feet on the floor with the front of his torso facing A1 at any point prior to contact?



Only if neither the T nor the L blow their whistle.

I think this is a block, not because he never had LGP but because he lost LGP. He was slow in reacting and moving to maintain it, and thus lost it. He never really made it back into the path with the contact being off to the side as he was moving back into the path and into the opponent laterally making it a block.

How does being slow in reacting cause you to lose LGP?

I'm with Camron, when A1 retreated B1 was no longer in LGP. A1 then went in a new direction and B1 never got 2 feet down in his path.

A1 established a new path and B1 wasn't in it. B1 needed to reestablish LGP and didn't.

Bad angle on play #1 but first reaction was block with defender moving into the path of the BH/D but just not getting there in time. Not the best angle on play #2 either because I cannot see between to see if there was any contact but, assuming there was contact, PC in #2.

By rule, a defender can move laterally or obliquely to maintain position after they initially obtain legal guarding position as long as they do not move toward the opponent when contact occurs.

Wouldn't retreating mean the offensive player caused contact with the defender?

When A1 pulls the ball back out (towards T), that is what I think was labeled as 'retreating'. At that point B1 hangs back and relinquishes his LGP (he's roughly 10 feet off of A1). There is no maintaining LGP at that point. It is then B1's attempt to again establish (or re-establish) LGP upon A1 driving to the basket, to which he could not do, thus the block call.

Really? Where is there anything in the rules that says a defender loses LGP if either player backs away?

He retreated about 6-7 ft from the defender and started a new path.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

So LGP exists forever?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Move A1 and B1 from the perimeter to the post area. A1 is faced up towards the goal about a foot from B1, who has both feet on the floor with his/her torso facing A1. A1 backs up so the distance between them is 7-8 feet but B1 doesn't move. Did B1 do anything to lose LGP?

B1 didn't do anything to lose LGP on his end (move forward, etc.) but A1's path is now backward, which means that B1 is no longer "by definition" guarding A1.

Oh course this argument is pointless cuz we don't care whether B1 is legal until contact occurs.

A1's path can also be considered to be the line between A1 and the basket.

Is that supported by any rule or case play or by the dictionary definition of the word "path"?

As I said, this line of reasoning is pointless anyway.

Path isn't defined in the rule book as far as I know. I believe it to mean both the line in which a player is moving AND the line in between a player and where they want to go (the basket).

The case plays largely talk about path as the direction a player is actually moving.

However, imagine a stationary A1 and a stationary B1 where A1 fakes B1 into the air such that B1 jumps perfectly straight up. A1 then, after A1 is airborne, moves into B1. Did B1 have LGP? Why or why not? Was B1 entitled to verticality (noting that verticality only is granted with LGP)?

Alternately, imagine A1 moving across the top of the key with B1 sliding across the top of the key as well. B1 had two feet down momentarily and remains between A1 and the basket but is never in the path A1 is traveling. A1 suddenly changes direction towards the basket contacting B1's chect while B1 still had one foot off the floor. LGP or not?

Since "path" isn't defined in the rule book the next best thing is the dictionary. One of the definitions is "the area in front of someone...that is moving." So while A1's direction in my example is backwards, his/her path would still be towards the goal if they're still facing B1/the basket.

Stop the clip at the 2 second mark. B1 is not in A1's path when A1 starts his drive diagnoally.