Block charge and aftermath

[Hawkeyes]

Is there still be a belief by some officials that the defender has to "take the contact" in order to have a charge?
We must rid the earth of such thinking!

[Mr.C]

Agreed!

[deecee]

IT should have been a charge. However how they adjudicated was correct. The offensive player was in his shooting motion at the time of the foul so the basket counts, then adjudicate the penalty for the block.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by deecee

IT should have been a charge. However how they adjudicated was correct. The offensive player was in his shooting motion at the time of the foul so the basket counts, then adjudicate the penalty for the block.

Pause at first contact: ball is still in air toward the shooter. (And yes, I realize they don't get to do that and it's a really tough call to make live.)

[CJP]

I think these guys screwed this up, big time. Got the block/charge wrong and then made an error by awarding 2 points. Even if it was a block, the basket shouldn't have counted.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by CJP

I think these guys screwed this up, big time. Got the block/charge wrong and then made an error by awarding 2 points. Even if it was a block, the basket shouldn't have counted.

I think its a very poor sequence for this crew.

Would love to have seen the coach's reaction.

[frezer11]

Well I might get torn apart for it, but I'll go to bat for the lead just a little bit here. While I do still think it was a charge after several viewings, I also think it would be interesting to see an endline angle, which obviously is unavailable. Just before contact, W11 runs directly between the players and the camera angle, and just as he gets out of the way, the contact is occurring, and the kid who took the "charge" has his right leg at a weird angle outside of his frame, whereas it didn't look like that before the view is interrupted. This could imply that he was, in fact, sliding to his left at the time of impact. (Although I do acknowledge that his could be part of him bracing for contact as well, as I said, I'd love to have an unobstructed angle of the full play)

I realize I'm analyzing this too far, and as I said, I still think it was a charge, but the more I've watched it, the less certain I think I am-

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Well I might get torn apart for it, but I'll go to bat for the lead just a little bit here. While I do still think it was a charge after several viewings, I also think it would be interesting to see an endline angle, which obviously is unavailable. Just before contact, W11 runs directly between the players and the camera angle, and just as he gets out of the way, the contact is occurring, and the kid who took the "charge" has his right leg at a weird angle outside of his frame, whereas it didn't look like that before the view is interrupted. This could imply that he was, in fact, sliding to his left at the time of impact. (Although I do acknowledge that his could be part of him bracing for contact as well, as I said, I'd love to have an unobstructed angle of the full play)

I realize I'm analyzing this too far, and as I said, I still think it was a charge, but the more I've watched it, the less certain I think I am-

I agree with you. I have a charge from our angle, but it's possible that the defender's leg may be extended outside his vertical frame. I'm not going to say that the video is 100% conclusive.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Pause at first contact: ball is still in air toward the shooter. (And yes, I realize they don't get to do that and it's a really tough call to make live.)

The easy, and CORRECT call, is to wave off the basket. What we really have here is a team control foul and the basket should not have counted as the contact occurred before the shooter is even going up. To count this basket is terrible officiating.

Unless he clearly got the shot off before the contact, this is an easy basket to wave off.

[stripes]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

The easy, and CORRECT call, is to wave off the basket. What we really have here is a team control foul and the basket should not have counted as the contact occurred before the shooter is even going up. To count this basket is terrible officiating.

Unless he clearly got the shot off before the contact, this is an easy basket to wave off.

I talked with the cc about this very thing. After seeing the video, he agreed.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

Is there still be a belief by some officials that the defender has to "take the contact" in order to have a charge?
We must rid the earth of such thinking!

Explain for the casual observer, please!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Explain for the casual observer, please!

Some would say:

"If the defender is moving backwards, it's not a charge."

"If the defender doesn't get run over, it's not a charge."

"The offense must go 'to and through' the defender to be a charge."

"If the offense alters the path slightly so the contact is shoulder-to-shoulder and not torso-to-torso, it's not a charge."

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Some would say:

"The offense must go 'to and through' the defender to be a charge."

I understand where you are coming from on the other platitudes (if I'm using that word correctly), but what is about "to and through" that you don't like, specifically?

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

I understand where you are coming from on the other platitudes (if I'm using that word correctly), but what is about "to and through" that you don't like, specifically?

I know the question was not directed to me, but "to and through" has nothing to do with the rule. That phrase often implies that it is required for the offensive player to drive through the defender, and put them on the ground for it to be a foul. If there is legal guarding position and sufficient contact to cause displacement, then it should be an offensive foul. I've called charges where the defender remained standing and the offensive player was on the ground before (though these are typically better left as a no-call).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I know the question was not directed to me, but "to and through" has nothing to do with the rule. That phrase often implies that it is required for the offensive player to drive through the defender, and put them on the ground for it to be a foul. If there is legal guarding position and sufficient contact to cause displacement, then it should be an offensive foul.

Basically, this.