Video Request: Block/Charge

[crosscountry55]

12/30/15: Syracuse @ Pitt, ESPN2, call at 5.6 remaining first half.

I don't usually ask for B/C videos (there are no shortage of requests each season), but this one had me perplexed. Defender was outside the RA, so that's not the issue.

Saving my thoughts for later. Want to see how the discussion goes once the video is up.

Side discussions could include whether C got too excited about the secondary defender coming over and therefore missed an illegal screen on the primary defender as the drive began.

[tnolan]

Here you are sir...

https://youtu.be/91B_2CupZ4o

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

I think L had defender still moving forward ad the offensive player left the ground.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think L had defender still moving forward ad the offensive player left the ground.

This.

[tnolan]

IMHO, this is a block at all levels.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Side discussions could include whether C got too excited about the secondary defender coming over and therefore missed an illegal screen on the primary defender as the drive began.

C has a very late whistle so I doubt he is getting super excited about the secondary defender coming over. Plus the screen is legal at that level and every level below that too IMO.

[MechanicGuy]

About as close as you can get. I'd have had a block too.

[Blindolbat]

Don't think I see an illegal screen and a block looks like the right call.

[Camron Rust]

Block....still moving in after the shooter left the floor.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Block....still moving in after the shooter left the floor.

Are you sure? Looks like he stops with both feet on the ground and then braces for impact. The bracing looks kinda goofy but I'm not calling it a block for just that aspect of the call.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

1) I would have expected my first year students to get this call correct: CHARGE!!

2) I do not use the term "secondary defender" because there is no such thing as a "secondary defender" contrary to it being in the NCAA Men's and Women's Rules Books. The members of these two rules committees, may be very good basketball coaches but the addition of the term "secondary defender" and the "restricted area" to the rules show that they are completely lacking in the basic concepts of the Guarding Rule as it was conceived over fifty years ago.

The Guarding Rule was written based upon the following three concepts:

(1) An Offensive Player without the Ball has a reasonable expectation of not being defended because he/she does not have the Ball.

(2) An Offensive Player who does not have control of the should be expected to be guarded the instant he/she gains control of the Ball; meaning that the Offensive Player should expect to be guarded as long as he/she has Player Control if the Ball.

(3) An Offensive Player in control of the ball cannot drive the lane and go airborne indiscriminately. An Offensive Player in control of the Ball must make a decision before he goes airborne: "Can I return to the floor before making contact with a Defensive Player who has taken a legal position on the floor before I go airborne?" The "restricted area" allows the Offensive Player with the Ball to drive the lane and go airborne indiscriminately.

One can see how these Concepts are applied in the countless Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings that have been written over the last five decades.

It is late and past my bed time and I do not want to get riled up thinking of the clueless members of the NCAA Basketball Rules Committees.

Good night all.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...

2) I do not use the term "secondary defender" because there is no such thing as a "secondary defender" contrary to it being in the NCAA Men's and Women's Rules Books. The members of these two rules committees, may be very good basketball coaches but the addition of the term "secondary defender" and the "restricted area" to the rules show that they are completely lacking in the basic concepts of the Guarding Rule as it was conceived over fifty years ago....

How is this relevant to the actual words printed in the 2015-16 Rule and Case books and what the officials working NCAA games are supposed to do?

So you are going to tell a college official to ignore the RA when they are working a college game?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Evolution sucks.

I summarized your post.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) I would have expected my first year students to get this call correct: CHARGE!!

You're like a broken record on these plays. Have you ever come on the forum and said a close play was a block?

I'm all for shipping 50/50 calls, but this is a block.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) I would have expected my first year students to get this call correct: CHARGE!!

I should have stopped reading at this incorrect statement. This play is a block, and correctly ruled a block by the official.

Further, the concept of a secondary defender is in the NCAA rulebook. See Rule 4, Section 35.

If you don't like the evolution of the game, that's fine, but your opinion isn't pertinent to a discussion of today's rules.