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

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

it was sarcasm -- related to another thread.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

it was sarcasm -- related to another thread.

Yes, and some of us got it immediately.

I have to be honest. Watching live on full speed I said block. In slow mo I thought PC.

I can live with it either way and the way it was handled here was 100% appropriate for the play.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

Considering JD Collins is lamenting the number of blarge calls on televised games by "top-level D1 officials" on one of his recent video posts, this comment is especially ridiculous.

[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?

[dahoopref]

Another good play for discussion.

P#31 was a secondary defender during OSU#3's outnumbered fastbreak drive to the basket.

IMO, P#31 moved laterally when OSU#3 was airborne and the contact occurred.

From the 2016-17 NCAA Men's Rulebook:

Rule 4, Section 17. Guarding

Art. 6. To maintain a legal guarding position after the initial position has
been established, the guard:

e. May move laterally or obliquely to maintain position provided such a
move is not toward the opponent when contact occurs; Exception: A
secondary defender who has established initial legal guarding position on
an airborne shooter/passer may not move laterally or obliquely to maintain
legal guarding position. The secondary defender in this position may remain
stationary or may move backwards.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Another good play for discussion.

P#31 was a secondary defender during OSU#3's outnumbered fastbreak drive to the basket.

IMO, P#31 moved laterally when OSU#3 was airborne and the contact occurred.

From the 2016-17 NCAA Men's Rulebook:

Question: How,when or at what point would you determine #31 to be the secondary defender? When the video begins, the dribbler has already passed #12 from Purdue just outside of the 3 pt. arc. From that point, it appears the play is just the dribbler vs. #31. Not necessarily questioning your statement. I just am not sure. Could #31 be considered the primary defender in this specific play?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Another good play for discussion.

P#31 was a secondary defender during OSU#3's outnumbered fastbreak drive to the basket.

IMO, P#31 moved laterally when OSU#3 was airborne and the contact occurred.

If we are talking about how much he moved laterally, than we are talking about an inch or two. He was basically there waiting on the contact. He even took the contact in the chest. I would not at all consider that outside of the movement stated in the rulebook. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender in this case most of the time. It would be one thing if he slide over a couple of feet, but he is trying to take the contact. The only thing it seems like you would require is for him to be totally still, which is not the requirement for the rule.

Peace