PC foul without a falling player (Video)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MatthewPV

I know "set" is not a requirement for a defender. After a 2nd...and 3rd look...I stand corrected. The defender is moving laterally therefore isn't in violation.

I was a little more snarky than I needed to be.

[packersowner]

Looking at my 2012-2013 case book, there are two cases cited 4.23.2 and 4.23.3 where the case discusses "contact" to the torso, both rulings state player control foul.

I think the argument most are having is, how much contact warrants a player control foul? Why do we let the offense make contact but the minute an offensive player touches with two hands, its hand checking and a foul. I think a lot of us have been conditioned to allow the offense to have the advantage. I don't have a problem with this call, its defensible.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by packersowner

I think the argument most are having is, how much contact warrants a player control foul? Why do we let the defense make contact but the minute an offensive player touches with two hands, its hand checking and a foul. I think a lot of us have been conditioned to allow the offense to have the advantage. I don't have a problem with this call, its defensible.

FIFY.

And, it's because there's a specific rule on it.

If they added a specific rule that "contact by a dribbler to the torso of a defensive player with LGP is an automatic foul" then the play here would be a foul.

I agree with those above who say this could go either way -- and we don't know what else had been happening in this game or the expectations of that area.

[JRutledge]

I actually like the call. I think it is very close, but I would call that and have called that. I do not need a defender to fall to be OK with the call.

BTW, this led to a T on the coach of the team that had a PC foul called on. But that is just more context, but thought I would show only the play in question first.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I actually like the call. I think it is very close, but I would call that and have called that. I do not need a defender to fall to be OK with the call.

BTW, this led to a T on the coach of the team that had a PC foul called on. But that is just more context, but thought I would show only the play in question first.

Peace

I think I want to see the T.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think I want to see the T.

Give me some time and I can post the video.

Peace

[SWMOzebra]

My first choice here would be a patient whistle and a no-call. Yes, I agree with those who say the defender was disadvantaged by being driven under the basket ... but the offensive player ended up on the ground, so I'm having trouble seeing exactly what advantage he gained from the contact.

All this being said, if you're going to have a whistle here then PC is the right call.

No way this is a blocking foul, the defender did nothing wrong here.

[OKREF]

Saw a call a Tuesday night. Defender is legal, never moves, offensive player driving by the defense and they hit shoulder to shoulder. Official called a block. I asked myself what the defender did wrong. I know it wasn't technically torso to torso, however I had a hard time with the block here. My opinion was a PC, or a pass.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Saw a call a Tuesday night. Defender is legal, never moves, offensive player driving by the defense and they hit shoulder to shoulder. Official called a block. I asked myself what the defender did wrong. I know it wasn't technically torso to torso, however I had a hard time with the block here. My opinion was a PC, or a pass.

This is one of my favorite questions not only to ask myself, but also to ask a coach when they're begging for a foul on the defense, or even a partner if I'm questioning something they called when we discuss things after the game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Saw a call a Tuesday night. Defender is legal, never moves, offensive player driving by the defense and they hit shoulder to shoulder. Official called a block. I asked myself what the defender did wrong. I know it wasn't technically torso to torso, however I had a hard time with the block here. My opinion was a PC, or a pass.

Personal confession: That's a hard call for me to make. As described I agree it's a PC, but for whatever reason, I tend to default to block on this. Maybe I see (or have seen) too many defenders shift sideways just as the offense tries to go around (especially with the euro step -- and that means that I have to look for and judge travelling as well) so now I expect it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Saw a call a Tuesday night. Defender is legal, never moves, offensive player driving by the defense and they hit shoulder to shoulder. Official called a block. I asked myself what the defender did wrong. I know it wasn't technically torso to torso, however I had a hard time with the block here. My opinion was a PC, or a pass.

You're right. Not being torso-to-torso doesn't make it a block if the defender had LGP. That merely means it is probably not going to be a PC with minimal/marginal actual contact. It is not illegal when a shooter/dribble is almost able to avoid the defender instead of hitting them sqaure.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Saw a call a Tuesday night. Defender is legal, never moves, offensive player driving by the defense and they hit shoulder to shoulder. Official called a block. I asked myself what the defender did wrong. I know it wasn't technically torso to torso, however I had a hard time with the block here. My opinion was a PC, or a pass.

Ugh, I occasionally work with a couple partners who want to (and do) call this a block, and then explain to the coach that "he has to take it square..." SMH...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I was a little more snarky than I needed to be.

We're going to start calling you Snarqwells!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

We're going to start calling you Snarqwells!

Hah