Play-by-play indicates a shooting foul and two free throws.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yes they did. I cut this out of the video for the effort of time.

Peace

Beg to disagree - for a third time
 

I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, but nowhere in the manual does it indicate that if I point to the RA that I would otherwise have called a PC. It just doesn't stand up to logic. Here is why there is a difference:

If the play is a block, and I don't point that indicates that the block is being called on illegal movement. No one can bring me information on the RA that would change that call.

But if I called a block, because I thought it was an RA play and pointed (which is how the Signaling Sequence is worded "occurs because the secondary defender was located in the restricted area"), if someone brought me information that the defender wasn't inside the RA, the play could then be changed. There may be times when the only thing I am calling (which could be wrong...) is that the defender was secondary and in the RA when contact occurred - I don't have to decide if B/C - I just point to the RA and indicate block. And we know that there are some 50/50 plays that could go either way. By your assertion I could not do this as you assume I would have had a PC.

Now you or your conference may have adopted the position that pointing = PC, but don't argue that that is what the mechanics manual states.:rolleyes:

Again, my comment was in jest but I agree with the others. Adam highlighted the bottom part of the manual which said if it's a block with or without the RA don't point to the RA.
Now, If I'm certain he's in the arc I might report it that way at table. Not pointing to arc when I call it is important for communication to partners. The arc can be a pain and the mechanic lets us all know what's going on.

If I know that when u signal block, it's a block no matter what...forget the arc...im not coming in to tell you anything. It was a block no matter what. If I know that you will only point to RA if call would have been charge but for RA I know whether to change or not.

[QUOTE]Correct. LGP not established. Straight block.

A point to RA indicates you are calling block ONLY because defender located in RA as LGP was established.

Why this is important (and logical):
There will be plays where calling official mis-applies RA rule (play develops in LDB, one-on-one, etc.) and pointing to RA invites partners to come with additional info to change to PC call. No point, no discussion.

In your scenario above, if you point to RA regardless of block/charge decision, then your partner comes and says "Partner, RA doesn't apply in this play because...". What will your reply be?

In Adam's post #28 -- the orange highlight indicates point if it would otherwise be a charge. That's the meaning of "..because the defender was in the RA". I think you might be confusing this with "IF the defender is in the RA").

The red part in that post says that if it's a block either way, do not point. I have a hard time seeing how that sentence could be any more clear.

Are you even taking the time to read your own quotes from the manual?

It tells you right there not to point at the RA if the play would have been a block regardless of the RA. What more do you need? I'm confounded.

I guess you guys have never had a block/charge play that was bang bang on a fast break that needs 4 of your fellow officials to review the film 5 time in slow motion to decide whether the play was a block or a charge. Then have one of those plays happen where you adjudicate it as an RA play and in that split second call a block solely because the defender was in the RA. Seems to me in that situation you would follow the signaling sequence and include both a block signal and point to the RA.

Now, suppose your interpretation of the RA play is wrong - say it was on a fast break, but it was actually 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 and your partner brings you that information since you indicated it was an RA play. Now you would have to do what we do on any other 50/50 play and come up with a call. That could be a block or that could be a charge.

Hence it is not necessarily true that if you call an RA play and point to the RA that you would have had a PC.

Splitting hairs, but I don't think you leap to stating something as fact that is not actually written in the books. I understand that approach works and holds true 98% of the time, but if that were the rule, then it would have been easy enough to put it in writing just as the block in any circumstance is in writing.

QED

Amazing, absolutely amazing! I have never been closer to actually having my head explode than when I read some of the posts in this thread.:confused:

As Bob said, how could they make it any clearer. And I'm the lurker here who usually says that what they say is a clear rule is not really clear.
Here's how you resolve your problem. When there is contact decide what it would have been absent the RA. Just like you would have on any other play. If it would have been a block, signal block. If it would have been a charge, signal a restricted area block. Then if you're wrong about the RA, your partner can come in and help you. If you're wrong about the block charge part of it nobody can help you. Put another way, you don't get to defer deciding this part of the play because there's an easy way out, because you might be wrong about the easy way out.

1) This is in the mechanics manual as others have pointed out. The mechanics manual tells us exactly what to do. If it is a block because the player is in the restricted area, point. This means you only point if it is a block because of the RA. The second point in the mechanics manual says, if it is judged a block solely due to the contact (regardless of location on the floor), you do not point.

2) The quote above explains why this is the mechanic. First of all, you have to referee the play every time. You can't simply chose to take the easy way out and say "Thank God he was in the RA, I can now call a block on a play I have no clue how to actually rule." You have to referee the play. This is important for the play I bolded above. If you are simply saying "I've got a block only because of the RA, and if he's actually not in the RA, I don't have a clue" you are screwed when your partner comes with additional information. What are you going to do? Make it up?

You must be a camp favorite. [emoji79]

What's really amazing is that you brought the CCA manual into this conversation and now you're ignoring the words you actually quoted.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yes it is because that's what's written in the CCA manual. If you as the calling official don't point at the RA on the initial call your partners can also come in with information if necessary ("#xx on Team B established his/her guarding position in the RA" if your call was a PC or TC foul). If you call a block on your own without pointing, that call is all yours.

To borrow from a fellow official not in this Forum, you seem to be taking simple math - i.e., the line from the CCA manual - and turning it into calculus.

No, it couldn't. It MUST be a charge. If you point you are saying "this is a CHARGE if it's not an RA, and a BLOCK if it is an RA." So, once your partner tells you it's not an RA -- you're left with no choice.

CallMeMrRef - you are wrong. The clue would be that you are the only salmon swimming downstream while the rest are going the other way.

Your quotes even prove you wrong. It's ok to be wrong.