Video Request: Block/Charge

[BlueDevilRef]

I'd say block as well. The very last view shows the defender moving forward and to his left which causes him to chuck Gbinije with side and not take contact straight on.


I wish I had a cool signature

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

I'd say block as well. The very last view shows the defender moving forward and to his left which causes him to chuck Gbinije with side and not take contact straight on.


I wish I had a cool signature

Gold star, sir! When I first watched it from the standard camera angle, I thought for sure it was a charge. Seeing it from the L's angle (after watching it ten times), I finally convinced myself that it was a block based on that left shoulder injection. Subtle, but not a recoil action, especially at that level. Great call by the L. I think the defender got LGP before both of the shooter's feet left the floor, but then he gave it up by moving that shoulder forward outside of his vertical plane where contact occurred.

As for the C, agree it was a late whistle, but I'm just critiquing that I thought he was a little too quick to abandon the two high post defenders at the beginning of the drive. You could tell from his slide down and his eyes. Illegal screen or not up high, my point is that I don't think he even had an opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

I'm working this season on a principle that might well apply here. Your feedback on this is invited. I'm still in the middle of studying it.
And I'm not assessing the call made in this clip. I'm only bringing up for discussion the mechanic which, for many, can explain why so many officials seem always to default to a block on plays that are actually charges.
Note what the first, immediate, impulsive motion for the lead was on this call.
He starts immediately, with no pause or hesitation, going straight up with both arms. That locks him into one call and one call only, a block. His initial, impulsive motion is a precursor to this inevitable result.
Whereas, if the first impulse is, as is approved, a single fist in the air, then the signal, either block or charge, that gives the official just that little bit of a fraction of a second to digest what just happened so that a charge is at least given a chance to be called if warraned.
I'm not saying this is a universal thing for all, but it seems to be a valid observation as I've been studying video of block/charge calls on the high school and college level more this year.
Again, I'm not debating the call in the clip. Only the initial, seemingly impulsive start of the signal that might often lead to a default call which isn't always correct.
Am I on the right track with this? Or am I all wet?

[tnolan]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I'm working this season on a principle that might well apply here. Your feedback on this is invited. I'm still in the middle of studying it.
And I'm not assessing the call made in this clip. I'm only bringing up for discussion the mechanic which, for many, can explain why so many officials seem always to default to a block on plays that are actually charges.
Note what the first, immediate, impulsive motion for the lead was on this call.
He starts immediately, with no pause or hesitation, going straight up with both arms. That locks him into one call and one call only, a block. His initial, impulsive motion is a precursor to this inevitable result.
Whereas, if the first impulse is, as is approved, a single fist in the air, then the signal, either block or charge, that gives the official just that little bit of a fraction of a second to digest what just happened so that a charge is at least given a chance to be called if warraned.
I'm not saying this is a universal thing for all, but it seems to be a valid observation as I've been studying video of block/charge calls on the high school and college level more this year.
Again, I'm not debating the call in the clip. Only the initial, seemingly impulsive start of the signal that might often lead to a default call which isn't always correct.
Am I on the right track with this? Or am I all wet?

I don't think you're too far off here at all. It seems to have elevated to that especially at the collegiate level, but I think based more on the rules and officials adapting to them. The NCAA changes in recent years regarding block/charge has made it extremely difficult for defenders to take charges which in turn makes it easy for officials to default right to the block call. I'm not arguing against rule changes or adoptions, just merely an observation.
Personally, I think at the NFHS level (for now), it's a little easier to determine the call. Referee the defense and think like the offense. And as you stated Freddy, getting that arm up for the correct mechanic gives you more time to digest that play.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[so cal lurker]

My usual disclaimer: I ref soccer, not hoops . . .

I disagree with where you go with this. There are three possible calls on the play, not two. Block, charge, or nothing. Your process seems to encourage the referee to blow the whistle and raise the arm before deciding which of the three. I think that's a bad idea -- and will result in more anticipation calls where the referee expects something that doesn't actually happen. (And from the comfort of my seat in the stands, I think that is something that differentiates experienced, quality officials from newbie/sloppy officials: the ability to actually wait rather than anticipate and call fouls that never happen.) IMHO, the referee should know what the call is before blowing the whistle.

Originally Posted by Freddy

I'm working this season on a principle that might well apply here. Your feedback on this is invited. I'm still in the middle of studying it.
And I'm not assessing the call made in this clip. I'm only bringing up for discussion the mechanic which, for many, can explain why so many officials seem always to default to a block on plays that are actually charges.
Note what the first, immediate, impulsive motion for the lead was on this call.
He starts immediately, with no pause or hesitation, going straight up with both arms. That locks him into one call and one call only, a block. His initial, impulsive motion is a precursor to this inevitable result.
Whereas, if the first impulse is, as is approved, a single fist in the air, then the signal, either block or charge, that gives the official just that little bit of a fraction of a second to digest what just happened so that a charge is at least given a chance to be called if warraned.
I'm not saying this is a universal thing for all, but it seems to be a valid observation as I've been studying video of block/charge calls on the high school and college level more this year.
Again, I'm not debating the call in the clip. Only the initial, seemingly impulsive start of the signal that might often lead to a default call which isn't always correct.
Am I on the right track with this? Or am I all wet?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

My usual disclaimer: I ref soccer, not hoops . . .

I disagree with where you go with this. There are three possible calls on the play, not two. Block, charge, or nothing. Your process seems to encourage the referee to blow the whistle and raise the arm before deciding which of the three. I think that's a bad idea -- and will result in more anticipation calls where the referee expects something that doesn't actually happen. (And from the comfort of my seat in the stands, I think that is something that differentiates experienced, quality officials from newbie/sloppy officials: the ability to actually wait rather than anticipate and call fouls that never happen.) IMHO, the referee should know what the call is before blowing the whistle.

No, I don't encourage the referee to blow the whistle and raise the arm before deciding which of the three... That goes against the principle of slow whistles from L, of which I'm an advocate. In fact, many of the times when the two arms begin to go up simultaneously, they're on quick whistles. This impulsive raising of both fists on a quick whistle is what locks officials into the default block on some plays that should have gone charge.
I'm advocating a slower whistle, in fact.
Your last sentence I also agree with. What I'm identifying is a habit that mitigates against that.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Freddy

No, I don't encourage the referee to blow the whistle and raise the arm before deciding which of the three... That goes against the principle of slow whistles from L, of which I'm an advocate. In fact, many of the times when the two arms begin to go up simultaneously, they're on quick whistles. This impulsive raising of both fists on a quick whistle is what locks officials into the default block on some plays that should have gone charge.
I'm advocating a slower whistle, in fact.
Your last sentence I also agree with. What I'm identifying is a habit that mitigates against that.

That makes no sense to me. What is "impulsive" about it if the referee has already decided it is a block? I don't think your proposed habit mitigates against anything -- it encourages decision making after the first signal, which is more likely to encourage an early whistle while still thinking than to encourage a slow whistle.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

That makes no sense to me. What is "impulsive" about it if the referee has already decided it is a block? I don't think your proposed habit mitigates against anything -- it encourages decision making after the first signal, which is more likely to encourage an early whistle while still thinking than to encourage a slow whistle.

OK. I asked for feedback and that's what I got, so I thank you for that. I will consider your responses as seriously as I have considered others' as I continue to study this issue. It's a "work in progress" study.

Added thing I might not have mentioned: this idea I'm testing is based on studying plays that were obvious charges that were called blocks instead, which prompt me to ask, "Why?" And one commonality with many of them is that starting with two fists at the hips going upward. I'm not conclusively set yet to claim cause-and-effect, but I'm still led to wonder...

Thanx again for your input.