Block-Charge Plays (Video)

[JRutledge]

Play #1:



Play #2:



Peace

[packersowner]

Both good plays, I am sure there will be a lot of debate.

#1 - in real time, it seemed like a good charge call. The more I watched it and watched the slo-mo, the more I questioned. To me its so close, it would be defensible either way.

#2 - in real time, the 2nd appeared to be a flop. To me this seems like a defender that wants to be up in the face the defender, then when there is contact, they act like they got rolled over. My bigger issue is that it appears the C is squared away looking at the bigs on the block and catches the contact out of his peripheral. It also appears the T has eyes on this. I think the first contact might have been offensive, but its hard from the camera angle.

[VaTerp]

#1- Defender moving laterally to maintain LGP. Its close but I like it.

#2- I don't hate this one but I don't like it. I think its a flop. I don't see any extension with the inside arm so I think you have to let the T live with that since he's reffing the whole play.

[Camron Rust]

#1. Great call. Great application of the rules of LGP...2 feet down, in the path, facing, moving laterally and even away. Contact happened before the shooter jumped so the movement was legal. Charge!!!

#2. Defender certainly went down harder than he was hit. That said, he did have LGP. It couldn't have been a block. The dribbler did step into him to some degree. Maybe not enough for a whistle, but it wasn't technically wrong.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#1. Great call. Great application of the rules of LGP...2 feet down, in the path, facing, moving laterally and even away. Contact happened before the shooter jumped so the movement was legal. Charge!!!

#2. Defender certainly went down harder than he was hit. That said, he did have LGP. It couldn't have been a block. The dribbler did step into him to some degree. Maybe not enough for a whistle, but it wasn't technically wrong.

Agreed -- and I think the play started and finished in the T's area (to add to the above comments questioning why C got this)

[lrucks1]

1: Good call in real time that's a charge all day. If you slow anything down you can make a case but even if I am the Temple coach I cant argue that in real time.

2: he actually got that call from the contact that happened prior in the backcourt. The defender was moving his feet and not playing with his hands which helped sell it. was it egregious no can you see why they called it yes.

[packersowner]

Originally Posted by lrucks1

1: Good call in real time that's a charge all day. If you slow anything down you can make a case but even if I am the Temple coach I cant argue that in real time.

2: he actually got that call from the contact that happened prior in the backcourt. The defender was moving his feet and not playing with his hands which helped sell it. was it egregious no can you see why they called it yes.

On #2, are you suggesting the foul was called because they missed the first one? I am trying to understand your statement.

[akmay20]

Originally Posted by lrucks1

1: Good call in real time that's a charge all day. If you slow anything down you can make a case but even if I am the Temple coach I cant argue that in real time.

2: he actually got that call from the contact that happened prior in the backcourt. The defender was moving his feet and not playing with his hands which helped sell it. was it egregious no can you see why they called it yes.

IMHO I think the initial contact that wasn't called got C's attention, and looking at the initial slow-mo replay, C was straight-lined and assumed there was a push-off.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Play #1:



Play #2:



Peace

Play #1: The is a Charging Foul (PCF) by the Dribbler. The Defender had Established a LGP and moved to maintain it. The Defender was moving Obliquely away from the Dribbler at the time of Contact.


Play #2a: The Dribbler committed a Pushing Foul (PCF). The Defender had not Established a LGP, but was effecting a legal Moving Screen against the Dribbler.


Play #2b: The is a Charging Foul (PCF) by the Dribbler. The Defender had Established a LGP and moved to maintain it. There was not flopping by the Defender. When moving in the manner the the Defender was moving it does not take much contact by the Dribbler to not the Defender off balance causing him to fall down.

MTD, Sr.

[TopicalTropical]

The first...yeah that's a really close one. I guess I dislike when defenders step into a player like that especially on a fast break. Make a play for the ball. To me the offensive player has made his move and the defender gets there a tenth of a second late. It is close but I would have called a charge. It is not something I would argue about too much, very close play.

2nd, I agree with previous poster when it looks like an offensive foul could have been called earlier and then the refs get the dribbler on the second questionable one. I think it is a flop and I bet if the first contact did not occur the ref would not have called it.