Block/Charge Do you think C should have had this?(video)
 

Do you think the C should have had this play? Did the lead have, or miss, an opportunity that he should have rotated?



<iframe src="https://vid.me/e/85cJ?stats=1" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen scrolling="no"></iframe>

Current officiating mechanics give this play to the Lead as it involves a secondary defender. The C has the action with the dribbler and the primary defender. Once she beats that player and the help defender comes from the lane to try to take a charge, the responsibility passes to the Lead.

That said, the call should have been a charge. The Lead needs to prepare for the play by moving to the close-down position instead of remaining out wide.

I don't believe that the Lead has time to rotate on this play as it is a pass to the wing and an immediate dribble drive after the catch, but he didn't give himself a chance by staying so wide. Getting to the close-down spot is necessary.

I do not have a problem with the L making this call because he is officiating the defense in the paint. But I do have a problem with both the L and C.

The L should have been closing down before the offensive player started her drive to the basket.

The C was too far out. He was on a line that was tangent to the top of the key and perpendicular to his sideline. His starting point should have been at the free throw line extended. And he too did not close down as the offensive player started her drive to the basket. Had the C used better positioning he too could have made this charge call.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I just read NevadaRef's comments. I agree 100% with him (except a philosophical one with regard to using the term: secondary defender. There is no such thing as a secondary defender.) I never watched what the L called and I am appalled that he called a block on such an easy charge call. The C should have really made this call and the C should be making a charge call here.

The L should've closed down and pinched the paint to about the O on the floor. Would've been a perfect look.

Not enough time to rotate, IMO

L call on the secondary defender. Neither official appeared to be working hard to get the best look(s).

Both L and C set in concrete.
L should have at least been at close down position when ball was on perimeter above the key, which, even if he hadn't initiated a rotation, would have given him a look at the secondary defender enough to validate LGP for the correct charge call. L had to have been ballwatching on the dribbler to default to a block on this play.
C should have stepped down toward the basket with the drive. Not saying that would have been his call because the crash was on the secondary defender which we typically give to L to have first crack. The lack of urgency, engagement, and mobility of both as they just stood there, still and stable, didn't look good and contributed to the wrong call being made.
Just my $3.68.
Anybody disagree?

I do not know why the C did not have a call on this. And I do not think this is the L's call all the way. Yes they can have a call here, but this to me is the C's call. And other than philosophy of who has this call, the C should have a play that originated in his or her area.

Peace

The secondary defender comes out of the L's primary. We're giving firsr crack to the L all day on this.

Thanks for the input. Definitely PC foul. L and C both out of position, that said, originated in C's primary, collision is all but outside the paint. I see it as C's whistle.

Since the offense "beat" the primary defender so far outside and so far before the contact, C could have had a look / call on this.

True, but as secondary coverage in case the Lead fails to cover the play.

Did our opinions help shape or confirm yours?

He still sees it as the C's whistle though. That's a problem. The message on the new way to handle secondary defenders during drives to the basket isn't getting communicated. This is a training issue. I wonder what state he is in.

I was asking cause I wasn't sure he heard a thing we said.

Frankly, I also find it harder to judge LGP on a play going away from me, but that's another unrelated thought.

Oh, Mark. Sigh.

I get it, higher levels invented this definition and it hasn't made it into NFHS Rule 4 yet, nor will it so long as we don't have a restricted area in high school. But there is absolutely nothing....NOTHING....wrong with using the phrase as a descriptor of modern defensive strategy vis-à-vis the evolution of officiating mechanics.

Purism is the enemy of innovation.

Have you read the most recent NFHS Manual lately? Because the term is defined and used in that publication which the majority of states, including the ones you officiate in, go by.