Purdue-Ohio State block/charge (C's whistle too quick?)

[JRutledge]

Here is the play.



This needs to be called. I see no reason the C would not make a call on this and IMO this is more his play. So no, I do not feel he is too quick. But they got together. I just feel it was wrong. I do not see what the defender did wrong. He was there before the player left the floor.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

They were probably looking at that left leg dragging over after the initial set.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

They were probably looking at that left leg dragging over after the initial set.

And still sliding over after the shooter left the floor....along with the torso shifting with it. If he hadn't still been moving sideways after the shooter left the floor, the contact may have not occurred or, more likely, not been as substantial. Thus, it was/is a block.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And still sliding over after the shooter left the floor....along with the torso shifting with it. If he hadn't still be moving sideways after the shooter left the floor, the contact may have not occurred or, more likely, not been as substantial. Thus, it was/is a block.

Yup, that's what I have.

[rsl]

Plus, the legs extend well beyond the shoulders and there is
leg contact with the shooter outside the torso. Clear block for me.

[bob jenkins]

Yeah but they sure looked bad getting together to discuss quickly -- that even goes beyond "eye contact"

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yeah but they sure looked bad getting together to discuss quickly -- that even goes beyond "eye contact"

Obviously I'm going to agree with that statement! I was observing a high school BV game in my area the other night and there were at least 4 plays almost identical to this one and each time there wasn't even a double whistle. The C had charge of the play. He knew it, the Lead new it. Beautifully executed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yeah but they sure looked bad getting together to discuss quickly -- that even goes beyond "eye contact"

I have no problems with their getting together. As they could have been talking about the RA, which is what you do in those plays. It was so quick it was insignificant to me and what the NCAA talks about doing in these situations.

Peace

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yeah but they sure looked bad getting together to discuss quickly -- that even goes beyond "eye contact"

au contraire mon frere...this was EXCELLENT officiating! If these were anything other than top-level D1 officials, this would have been a blarge (in a girls HS game it probably would not have had a whistle - cause the officials wouldn't know who should've blown their whistle). If you think that an official "looks bad"when getting a play called correctly, then it seems as though your priorities are mis-placed.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the play.



This needs to be called. I see no reason the C would not make a call on this and IMO this is more his play. So no, I do not feel he is too quick. But they got together. I just feel it was wrong. I do not see what the defender did wrong. He was there before the player left the floor.

Peace

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

They were probably looking at that left leg dragging over after the initial set.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And still sliding over after the shooter left the floor....along with the torso shifting with it. If he hadn't still be moving sideways after the shooter left the floor, the contact may have not occurred or, more likely, not been as substantial. Thus, it was/is a block.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Yup, that's what I have.

Originally Posted by rsl

Plus, the legs extend well beyond the shoulders and there is
leg contact with the shooter outside the torso. Clear block for me.

Jeff and I are on the same page here. Furthermore, all of the Defender's movement after he established a LGP is within his Cylinder of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Jeff and I are on the same page here. Furthermore, all of the Defender's movement after he established a LGP is within his Cylinder of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.

Since when is sideways movement considered part of verticality?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Cylinder of Verticality.

Is that anything like the Cone of Silence?