The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Duke/Kansas Block ? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/103727-duke-kansas-block.html)

rbruno Mon Mar 26, 2018 07:23pm

Duke/Kansas Block ?
 
What do you guys have?
Can you make the case that the defender didnít get his torso square
for ďinitialĒ LGP. Then moved slightly after the shooter left his feet
hence the block call. Been asking most of my ref friends and
itís been unanimous that it should have been a charge.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Mar 26, 2018 08:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbruno (Post 1019871)
What do you guys have?
Can you make the case that the defender didnít get his torso square
for ďinitialĒ LGP. Then moved slightly after the shooter left his feet
hence the block call. Been asking most of my ref friends and
itís been unanimous that it should have been a charge.


1) I am a life long KU fan (my beloved mother, Class of 1942).

2) The B1 Established a LGP. Any movement by B1 was within his Cylinder of Verticality. Therefore, a Charge by A1.

MTD, Sr.

AremRed Mon Mar 26, 2018 09:28pm

Pretty easy charge IMO. I think the calling official leaned block because of the score.

Paintguru Tue Mar 27, 2018 07:09am

Bang-bang play, but PCF in my mind.

LRZ Tue Mar 27, 2018 07:22am

"I think the calling official leaned block because of the score."

I don't follow. What do you mean, AR?

crosscountry55 Tue Mar 27, 2018 07:57am

I guess Iím in the minority, but Iím still saying block. I had the defender, specifically his left shoulder, leaning toward and into the ball handlerís path. I think the defender sought out the contact where it occurred.

That said, I havenít watched the play since I DVRíd it on Sunday night. Maybe I donít remember it as well as I think I do.

Roger Ayers advanced. I think maybe JD Collins thought it was a block, too. [emoji6] Actually that whole crew advanced, didnít they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Raymond Tue Mar 27, 2018 08:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1019886)
I guess Iím in the minority, but Iím still saying block. I had the defender, specifically his left shoulder, leaning toward and into the ball handlerís path. I think the defender sought out the contact where it occurred.

That said, I havenít watched the play since I DVRíd it on Sunday night. Maybe I donít remember it as well as I think I do.

Roger Ayers advanced. I think maybe JD Collins thought it was a block, too. [emoji6] Actually that whole crew advanced, didnít they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm more concerned with the lack of foul calls on two Kansas OOB plays and the inconsistent enforcement of traveling on 2 similar plays.

Raymond Tue Mar 27, 2018 08:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1019883)
"I think the calling official leaned block because of the score."

I don't follow. What do you mean, AR?

Kansas was down at the time. Kansas had been at a foul count disadvantage. Kansas had 2 plays that should have been fouls on Duke that didn't go their way.

Or maybe Roger just missed it.

#olderthanilook Tue Mar 27, 2018 08:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1019894)
Kansas was down at the time. Kansas had been at a foul count disadvantage. Kansas had 2 plays that should have been fouls on Duke that didn't go their way.

Or maybe Roger just missed it.

I think there is merit to the logic behind going with the block at that point of the game IF the play were a "50/50".

This play, even in real time, was not a 50/50, IMHO.

Randa16 Wed Mar 28, 2018 09:50am

I think the call could have went either way and my first reaction was charge. I have to say it was one of the worst called games I have ever seen. Several no calls and anticipate calls.

RedAndWhiteRef Wed Mar 28, 2018 09:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1019894)
Kansas was down at the time. Kansas had been at a foul count disadvantage. Kansas had 2 plays that should have been fouls on Duke that didn't go their way.

Or maybe Roger just missed it.

Can you truly "miss" a play like this in real time? The way I see it, whatever call you make is going to piss off half the gym no matter what, regardless of right or wrong.

You can slow it down and break it down on film till the cows come home, but the guys on the court don't have that luxury. IMO in this situation you just have to pick one. Elite Eight, final minutes, everything on the line--just pick one and sell it. That's what Roger did here and I don't have a problem with it.

You could definitely convince me it was a charge though.

JRutledge Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:13am

Here is the play (Video)
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wy_pV7Q2bMA" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Zoochy Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:45am

I tried to view the video. It states it is blocked:(

jeremy341a Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:05am

Player Control and not really that close. Thought so live and on replay.

crosscountry55 Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1019970)
I think the call could have went either way and my first reaction was charge. I have to say it was one of the worst called games I have ever seen. Several no calls and anticipate calls.


Right. And thatís why all three officials advanced to the Final Four, when no other regional final crew did so.

Gimme a break, fanboy with 28 posts in four years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sj Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:18am

Rut - The NCAA men-in-black are on to you now. Hopefully no one will be knocking on your door.

Multiple Sports Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:35am

Back in the day........
 
Back in the Burr / Higgins / Welmer era, I think everybody would have alluded to what
has been said, 50 / 50 call, Kansas down call it a block. Not sure if that was Roger's thought process but I'm OK with a block on this play.

I personally liked this era ( art over science ), I also think coaches were comfortable with it as well....

JRutledge Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sj (Post 1019979)
Rut - The NCAA men-in-black are on to you now. Hopefully no one will be knocking on your door.

Been through this before. Funny they allowed other videos to be posted on the exact play.

Peace

dahoopref Wed Mar 28, 2018 02:55pm

Former NCAA Men's Coordinator grades it....
 
https://twitter.com/jwasports/status/978618958772363265

https://twitter.com/jwasports/status/978618958772363265

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1019978)
And thatís why all three officials advanced to the Final Four, when no other regional final crew did so.

And I'm guessing that JC Collins and the committee agreed with "block" as well.

crosscountry55 Wed Mar 28, 2018 04:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 1019987)
https://twitter.com/jwasports/status/978618958772363265

https://twitter.com/jwasports/status/978618958772363265



And I'm guessing that JC Collins and the committee agreed with "block" as well.

I haven't felt this satisfied in months. :D

so cal lurker Wed Mar 28, 2018 04:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 1019987)
https://twitter.com/jwasports/status/978618958772363265

https://twitter.com/jwasports/status/978618958772363265



And I'm guessing that JC Collins and the committee agreed with "block" as well.

Or that it was too close to criticize the call that was made in real time and that the rest of the performance warranted them continuing . . .

Camron Rust Wed Mar 28, 2018 07:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by so cal lurker (Post 1019991)
Or that it was too close to criticize the call that was made in real time and that the rest of the performance warranted them continuing . . .

Exactly. While I may disagree with the call on replay, I can't say that I'd have done any different at the time. It wasn't obvious and a decision had to be made and he made a reasonable decision.

Randa16 Wed Mar 28, 2018 08:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1019978)
Right. And that’s why all three officials advanced to the Final Four, when no other regional final crew did so.

Gimme a break, fanboy with 28 posts in four years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lol let me guess you feel like you are better then me because of your impressive post count? Sorry some of us have kids, jobs a wife and don’t sit on the couch in our underwear eating Oreo ice cream and flexing because of our huge post count

My first ignore on here. I have no problem fighting with someone on here over a call or play, I will not however put up with anyone acting like they better then me. I have worked with way too many refs that told me they were 20 year vets or acted like they were better then me and I watched them piss themselves on the court.

crosscountry55 Wed Mar 28, 2018 08:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1019998)
Lol let me guess you feel like you are better then me because of your impressive post count? Sorry some of us have kids, jobs a wife and donít sit on the couch in our underwear eating Oreo ice cream and flexing because of our huge post count.


How did you know what my favorite ice cream flavor was?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Raymond Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1019998)
Lol let me guess you feel like you are better then me because of your impressive post count? Sorry some of us have kids, jobs a wife and donít sit on the couch in our underwear eating Oreo ice cream and flexing because of our huge post count

My first ignore on here. I have no problem fighting with someone on here over a call or play, I will not however put up with anyone acting like they better then me. I have worked with way too many refs that told me they were 20 year vets or acted like they were better then me and I watched them piss themselves on the court.

You"ve had a lot of bad partners.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Stripes33 Thu Mar 29, 2018 06:59am

Block/Charge
 
They only issue I have with the call is that a very high percentage of contact of this nature is called a player control foul throughout the regular season. I think the block call has left some people surprised based on what has been historically called a charge in college basketball. I would love to hear the officials explanation of what he saw and why he chose to go with the block.

deecee Thu Mar 29, 2018 07:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1019998)
Lol let me guess you feel like you are better then me because of your impressive post count? Sorry some of us have kids, jobs a wife and donít sit on the couch in our underwear eating Oreo ice cream and flexing because of our huge post count.

Glad that you join us here once a year, around the same time, to discuss the same thing over and over again (a call you didn't like). Welcome to the internet. Tell you family the internet says HI!

LRZ Thu Mar 29, 2018 08:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1019998)
I have no problem fighting with someone on here over a call or play, I will not however put up with anyone acting like they better then me.

Randa16, it is not post count that's at issue but attitude.

This judgmental line from your post makes you sound like you think you are better than the refs you criticized: "I have to say it was one of the worst called games I have ever seen."

That is not productive and doesn't contribute to anyone's improvement, which is generally the purpose of this forum--our collective education.

ballgame99 Thu Mar 29, 2018 08:45am

This looks like an easy charge. I am actually shocked by the comments on that Adams tweet. All 50/50 block charges should be blocks? No way. Why would we want to encourage the offense to plow into established defenders? If you are going to call a block on this defender who was in the paint this entire play, who established and maintained LGP because he leaned slightly but NOT call a charge on an offensive player who saw the defender there and created all of the contact vs pulling up and shooting a jump shot, then that is what you are doing.

CJP Thu Mar 29, 2018 08:58am

Charge. Was not even 50/50. If it was, I would still go charge.

LRZ Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:27am

Events in real time simply occur too quickly and are too complex for me to measure as if with a micrometer, so I have no default, no "go with" call--I referee the defense, immediately process what I see, and make a call, one way or the other. I'm just not that good to parse actions in real time and say "50/50" or something similar.

Multiple Sports Thu Mar 29, 2018 05:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1020014)
Events in real time simply occur too quickly and are too complex for me to measure as if with a micrometer, so I have no default, no "go with" call--I referee the defense, immediately process what I see, and make a call, one way or the other. I'm just not that good to parse actions in real time and say "50/50" or something similar.

Are you saying ( And I'm not judging ) that you dont take into consideration time and score, who the players are, how many fouls they have, what was most recently called on other end ), when making a decision on a " bang bang" play. I realize the purists will
beat me up over saying that but I think
on plays that close those are things that can help you in formulating your whistle...if
you have no idea what to call when you processing the play...

From what I read it seems as if you say, " Well I think it is a charge, therefore it is a charge" Again no judgement, just trying to understand your thought process....

LRZ Thu Mar 29, 2018 06:10pm

I'm saying two things, I think.

(1) I don't have a "default" on 50/50 plays: eg, reacting in real time, I see a charge or I see a block. In my mind, I don't "think" I see a block--I see a block.

(2) I focus on my perception of the play in front of me--eg, did the defender have LGP, did he move laterally or forward--not on externals like score.

I'm aware of the score and time, who the dominant players are, who may be in foul trouble, but I don't use those factors in making calls--not consciously, anyway.

Maybe what I'm saying is I always have an idea of what to call--although I may be wrong! In my work life, we used to say about judges, "Often wrong, never in doubt!" I'm also reminded of the famous Bill Klem quote, "It ain't nothin' until I call it."

Randa16 Thu Mar 29, 2018 06:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1020007)
Randa16, it is not post count that's at issue but attitude.

This judgmental line from your post makes you sound like you think you are better than the refs you criticized: "I have to say it was one of the worst called games I have ever seen."

That is not productive and doesn't contribute to anyone's improvement, which is generally the purpose of this forum--our collective education.


Lol how is my opinion saying I am better then anyone? I watched the game with several other refs. Guys who have done state HS championship games and college officials. They all agreed it was a horrible job by the officials. I gave my opinion thatís what everyone else does. To flex a post count is pathetic.

Randa16 Thu Mar 29, 2018 06:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1020005)
Glad that you join us here once a year, around the same time, to discuss the same thing over and over again (a call you didn't like). Welcome to the internet. Tell you family the internet says HI!


You sum up perfectly what is wrong with a lot of officials.

BillyMac Thu Mar 29, 2018 07:02pm

A Truly Great Basketball Official ...
 
Confucius says, "Anticipate the play, not the call".

Raymond Fri Mar 30, 2018 07:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1020034)
You sum up perfectly what is wrong with a lot of officials.

Couldn't he make the same comment about you? That sitting around judging the worthiness and tearing down the abilities of other officials is what's wrong with a lot of officials?

thedewed Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randa16 (Post 1020033)
Lol how is my opinion saying I am better then anyone? I watched the game with several other refs. Guys who have done state HS championship games and college officials. They all agreed it was a horrible job by the officials. I gave my opinion thatís what everyone else does. To flex a post count is pathetic.

Randa, just curious as a KU guy, I thought the refs did ok , did think that was a charge, but on balance didn't think KU got the benefit of the whistle that day. Since you thought they were horrible, I imagine you were rooting for Duke lol. What calls did you have a problem with?

crosscountry55 Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020052)
Randa, just curious as a KU guy, I thought the refs did ok , did think that was a charge, but on balance didn't think KU got the benefit of the whistle that day. Since you thought they were horrible, I imagine you were rooting for Duke lol. What calls did you have a problem with?


What? Discussing specific plays and calls instead of making unchallengeable ambiguous criticisms?

Be careful. Our March lurkers might start to think this an officiating discussion forum!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chuga Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:46am

Roger made a block call and sold it.
:D
After slowing the tape down and reviewing several times, it appears the defender establishes LGP, but then moves ever so slightly to his left to engage the offensive player. Bang bang call. I can agree with the call. But in real time, you've got to make the decision, call it, and sell it. Roger did all three.

LRZ Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:21pm

"it appears the defender establishes LGP, but then moves ever so slightly to his left to engage the offensive player."

I thought the defender, with LGP, moved laterally, so that the offensive player was responsible for the contact. But that was with the benefit of repeated viewings of the video. But as noted, the official on the floor had to react and sell the call, which he did. I have no problem with the call.

Whether the ref missed it or not is not a relevant question to me. When I think a call has been missed, I always ask why, what might the official have seen, was he in the right spot--that is, what can I learn from it?

Chuga Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1020057)
"it appears the defender establishes LGP, but then moves ever so slightly to his left to engage the offensive player."

I thought the defender, with LGP, moved laterally, so that the offensive player was responsible for the contact. But that was with the benefit of repeated viewings of the video. But as noted, the official on the floor had to react and sell the call, which he did. I have no problem with the call.

Whether the ref missed it or not is not a relevant question to me. When I think a call has been missed, I always ask why, what might the official have seen, was he in the right spot--that is, what can I learn from it?

I agree completely:)

ballgame99 Fri Mar 30, 2018 01:38pm

I will take slight issue with the statement that he "sold" this call. His footwork and cocked arm indicates he is getting ready to ship it, then he changes his mind and indicates the block.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vFeOxegQxcs" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

SC Official Fri Mar 30, 2018 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 1020060)
I will take slight issue with the statement that he "sold" this call. His footwork and cocked arm indicates he is getting ready to ship it, then he changes his mind and indicates the block.

Or maybe he paused for a second to process the play, which is one of the reasons there is such a big push to stop the clock in college.

I watched the same video you did and never once thought "he's about to punch it."

Raymond Fri Mar 30, 2018 02:07pm

How exactly did he "sell" the call? :confused:

Crisp signals and a strong presence every time you blow your whistle eliminates the need to sell calls.

VaTerp Fri Mar 30, 2018 03:12pm

In addition to a bunch of texts I received from friends about this call my mother, who doesn't even watch much basketball, called me to ask me what I thought about the call since she and my father disagreed. I ended up explaining LGP to my dad since his reasoning was the defender wasnt "completely set."

Watching live and on every replay I've seen since, this was an EASY PC IMO. We talk sometimes in pre-games about not making defenders "be perfect." This was a good example of that. This play is a PC 10 times out of 10 in my book and not particularly close at all.

thedewed Fri Mar 30, 2018 06:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 1020063)
In addition to a bunch of texts I received from friends about this call my mother, who doesn't even watch much basketball, called me to ask me what I thought about the call since she and my father disagreed. I ended up explaining LGP to my dad since his reasoning was the defender wasnt "completely set."

Watching live and on every replay I've seen since, this was an EASY PC IMO. We talk sometimes in pre-games about not making defenders "be perfect." This was a good example of that. This play is a PC 10 times out of 10 in my book and not particularly close at all.

this talk about establishing LGP and then moving, any movement he made after establishing LGP was with Newman in the air, so illegal. My issue is we are talking an inch or 2. I think it was a charge, and in any event there was more wrong calls in the game on balance in Duke's favor anyway, so it sure didn't cost Duke the game.

LRZ Fri Mar 30, 2018 06:38pm

"any movement he made after establishing LGP was with Newman in the air...."

I had the lateral movement before Newman became airborne.

I'm fascinated by the fact that, in this forum generally, we view plays multiple times, in slow motion, forwards and backwards--and we can't even agree on the objective "facts" of what we're seeing.

Not a criticism of anyone, just an observation.

Camron Rust Fri Mar 30, 2018 08:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020065)
this talk about establishing LGP and then moving, any movement he made after establishing LGP was with Newman in the air, so illegal. My issue is we are talking an inch or 2. I think it was a charge, and in any event there was more wrong calls in the game on balance in Duke's favor anyway, so it sure didn't cost Duke the game.

Are you sure about that? Show me the rule that says that.

thedewed Sat Mar 31, 2018 05:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1020070)
Are you sure about that? Show me the rule that says that.

Common sense if not literal.

just another ref Sat Mar 31, 2018 09:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020087)
Common sense if not literal.

wow

thedewed Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 1020096)
wow

Are you guys saying that if you establish legal guarding position, the driver jumps in the air, you can then slide underneath him? Good luck with that. You all are just playin' lol. There is no question anywhere on this one. You two just aren't thinking it through. If moving laterally while the driver is in the air to stay in front of him after he jumps is legal, then a lot of slides underneath a player become charges. So why the wow?

Any opinions on the blocked shot by DeSouza in the 2nd half? Looks like he got it as it got to the board, no bounce off it. I'd say on that call, it's not goal tending if the issue is the backboard, unless you see it come off the board and then touched. Tie goes to the blocker in other words.

Camron Rust Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:47am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020087)
Common sense if not literal.

Common sense would result in the opposite conclusion that you have made.

Camron Rust Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020098)
Are you guys saying that if you establish legal guarding position, the driver jumps in the air, you can then slide underneath him? Good luck with that. You all are just playin' lol. There is no question anywhere on this one. You two just aren't thinking it through. If moving laterally while the driver is in the air to stay in front of him after he jumps is legal, then a lot of slides underneath a player become charges. So why the wow?

No. That is not what we're saying. No one is saying the player moving laterally is doing so to "stay" in front of the opponent.

A player that "is" in front of the opponent who moves laterally doesn't lose LGP. The requirement is that the defender be in the path before the shooter leaves the floor. If you were to freeze the defender at that moment (when the shooter leaves the floor) and they are "in the path", then a subsequent lateral shift is irrelevant. They already met the requirements of LGP.

If at that frozen moment, the defender is NOT in the path of the shooter, then lateral movement to put them in the path mean they didn't have LGP when the shooter jumped.

The rule just does not require the defender to be set in stone before the shooter jumps. That type of thinking is what causes many officials to get block/charge plays wrong.

BillyMac Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:03am

Duck, Duck, Goose ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1020100)
The rule just does not require the defender to be set in stone before the shooter jumps. That type of thinking is what causes many officials to get block/charge plays wrong.

NFHS: A defender may turn away, or duck, to absorb contact, provided the defender has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court, and facing the opponent.

thedewed Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1020100)
No. That is not what we're saying. No one is saying the player moving laterally is doing so to "stay" in front of the opponent.

A player that "is" in front of the opponent who moves laterally doesn't lose LGP. The requirement is that the defender be in the path before the shooter leaves the floor. If you were to freeze the defender at that moment (when the shooter leaves the floor) and they are "in the path", then a subsequent lateral shift is irrelevant. They already met the requirements of LGP.

If at that frozen moment, the defender is NOT in the path of the shooter, then lateral movement to put them in the path mean they didn't have LGP when the shooter jumped.

The rule just does not require the defender to be set in stone before the shooter jumps. That type of thinking is what causes many officials to get block/charge plays wrong.

I don't agree, to establish legal guarding position, "The guardís torso shall face the opponent". Here is an example for you, would you say that a defender running along at the side of a dribbler in transition has 'legal guarding position'? I think he does...if the dribbler changes his path and moves into the defenders path, initiating the collision, it's a charge, despite the fact that the defender was not 'in the path' of the dribbler when establishing legal guarding position. Nowhere does the book say that a defender has to be 'in the path' of a moving dribbler to have legal guarding position, he must be 'facing' him, which is different. I understand the ability to maintain LGP by moving obliquely with the dribbler.

Another example more to your description, let's say a high flyer is coming straight at a guy set up for a charge in the paint, has clearly established LGP. Let's say springy on his last plant and jump changes direction to fly at a 20 degree angle to avoid the LGP. The defender cannot then move underneath the flyer while he is in the air and take a charge. I agree that this is an area that is misapplied quite a bit. An example of a guy that was in legal guarding position was Svi on Trent late in this game, Svi alongside moving with him, and Trent on his shot changing direction into Svi, 100% responsible for the collision, got an and 1. That should have been nothing or a charge.

Most important point here is that a defender doesn't have to be 'in the path' of a dribbler to establish LGP, at all. If you think about that, it's obvious. Consider a defender out top defending the point who is dribbling side to side, and defender is staying between him and the bucket, in LGP, but not 'in the path' of the dribbler. If the dribbler then changed direction and moved into the obliquely moving defender, it's on the dribbler.

JRutledge Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020106)
I don't agree, to establish legal guarding position, "The guardís torso shall face the opponent".

You can disagree, but you quoted the rule as only one of the things to establish LGP.

I did not read anything else after this statement because it is irrelevant.

Peace

Camron Rust Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020106)
I don't agree, to establish legal guarding position, "The guard’s torso shall face the opponent". Here is an example for you, would you say that a defender running along at the side of a dribbler in transition has 'legal guarding position'? I think he does...if the dribbler changes his path and moves into the defenders path, initiating the collision, it's a charge, despite the fact that the defender was not 'in the path' of the dribbler when establishing legal guarding position. Nowhere does the book say that a defender has to be 'in the path' of a moving dribbler to have legal guarding position, he must be 'facing' him, which is different. I understand the ability to maintain LGP by moving obliquely with the dribbler.

The basic definition of guarding says otherwise.

The rule....
Quote:

SECTION 23 GUARDING ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
It then goes on to define what further it takes to obtain and maintain LGP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020106)
Another example more to your description, let's say a high flyer is coming straight at a guy set up for a charge in the paint, has clearly established LGP. Let's say springy on his last plant and jump changes direction to fly at a 20 degree angle to avoid the LGP. The defender cannot then move underneath the flyer while he is in the air and take a charge.

Correct....that defender was no longer in the path when the shooter jumped to the side and became airborne. The defender would then have to move to get into the path....and it is too late for that. But that is not the same as saying the defender can't move if the shooter jumps at the defender already in the path.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020106)

.....

Most important point here is that a defender doesn't have to be 'in the path' of a dribbler to establish LGP, at all.

Actually, you're 100% wrong on that...see the above rule citation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020106)

If you think about that, it's obvious. Consider a defender out top defending the point who is dribbling side to side, and defender is staying between him and the bucket, in LGP, but not 'in the path' of the dribbler. If the dribbler then changed direction and moved into the obliquely moving defender, it's on the dribbler.

The real question is what is the definition of "path".

VaTerp Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020065)
this talk about establishing LGP and then moving, any movement he made after establishing LGP was with Newman in the air, so illegal. My issue is we are talking an inch or 2. I think it was a charge, and in any event there was more wrong calls in the game on balance in Duke's favor anyway, so it sure didn't cost Duke the game.

With regard to defensive movement after the offense went airborne, I think your statement here is somewhat contradictory even though I understand and mostly agree with what you are saying.

Its leading to what I hope will be a good discussion that you and Cameron have begun in breaking LGP down further.

With regard to the "balance of calls being in Duke's favor" I'll just note that its very interesting to me as one of my non officiating friends who I often have discussions with about officiating was texting me during the game that basically "refs just have it in them to cheat for Duke" b/c he felt very strongly that the balance of calls was going Duke's way all game. Full disclosure I am a life long Duke "hater" as a fan. And as a Maryland alum, who was on campus watching a notoriously and questionably officiated 2nd half of the 2001 semi-final, I will probably always have some personal feeling about Duke "getting calls." But I really observe the game as an official now so I don't get caught up in that as much as just trying to judge plays. And again, this particularly play, in my mind is a no brainer PC.

That said, its also interesting that some here have basically suggested that Ayers may have taken into consideration that Duke did seem to be getting the balance of the calls in going with a block here on what he saw as a close play. Obviously speculation but if so, then my belief is that he has earned that right. I just disagree that it was close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1020068)
.
I'm fascinated by the fact that, in this forum generally, we view plays multiple times, in slow motion, forwards and backwards--and we can't even agree on the objectives "facts" of what we're seeing.

Not a criticism of anyone, just an observation.

During a state final this year, I was in the arena talking to a recently retired official who I worked my first state final with a few years ago and is still involved as a state observer. I made a comment something to the effect of, "its a lot easier getting all of the calls correct from the stands" and their response was, "I still don't get em right."

Similar to your observation, I came away thinking about how even on replay there can be disagreement amongst good, experienced, and knowledgeable officials. Just shows how difficult it can be to officiate this game especially with athletic, skilled, and physically advanced players moving in a confined space.

canuckrefguy Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:41pm

The whole "defender moved slightly to his left" statement may seem like a hair split, but B/C plays in the air have to be handled differently than ones that happen along the floor.

John Adams himself released that "quiz" a number of years ago that showed officials getting all kinds of B/C calls wrong, and the big takeaway seemed to be that with plays on the floor, the only thing that matters is who initiates the contact - does the dribbler go into the defender, or does the defender go into the dribbler. With plays in the air, the defender gets ZERO latitude - he has to be at the spot before the shooter becomes airborne, and cannot move AT ALL except turning in place to absorb contact.

Gotta admit, at the time, I thought Ayers blew the call - but then saw the replay and said "geez, the guy moved a bit to the left...can't do that".

deecee Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:50pm

I personally go block on any 50/50 calls (tie goes to the offense).

Camron Rust Sat Mar 31, 2018 01:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy (Post 1020116)
The whole "defender moved slightly to his left" statement may seem like a hair split, but B/C plays in the air have to be handled differently than ones that happen along the floor.

John Adams himself released that "quiz" a number of years ago that showed officials getting all kinds of B/C calls wrong, and the big takeaway seemed to be that with plays on the floor, the only thing that matters is who initiates the contact - does the dribbler go into the defender, or does the defender go into the dribbler. With plays in the air, the defender gets ZERO latitude - he has to be at the spot before the shooter becomes airborne, and cannot move AT ALL except turning in place to absorb contact.

Then you need to watch it again. That is not the big takeaway. The big takeaway was did the defender get in front of the shooter before the shooter jumps. If the defender wasn't absolutely still, they still get the charge if they made it into the path first.

Regardless of the wording in that quiz, the plays where he talks about the defender moving making it a block ALL have the defender moving INTO the shooter.

thedewed Sat Mar 31, 2018 04:17pm

[QUOTE=JRutledge;1020108]You can disagree, but you quoted the rule as only one of the things to establish LGP.

I did not read anything else after this statement because it is irrelevant.

Peace[/QUOTE

Whatever the semantics, I don't agree at all that if you have legal guarding position and a flyer takes off at an angle to the path he was on, you can then slide to the new path and take a charge. That's simply not right. And as seen in A.R 239, there is a distinction between 'guarding' and 'guarding conform(ing) to legal guarding principles'.

I only quoted the 'facing the opponent' language because that was all that was in the initial LGP wording that was relevant to the discussion. This isn't rocket science.

Again, think of a point guard moving east/west covered by someone that is to his north towards the rim, but guarding him at a 90 degree angle to his path because his primary concern is staying between the dribbler and the basket. Are you taking the position that that isn't LGP? Of course it is. "guarding' in the rule book says nothing about whether that guarded player has the ball as well.

Unfortunately, these rule books aren't written by attorneys, they are written by basketball guys, so there is inconsistent wording from time to time. Yes , 'guarding' says in the path, but initial LGP says nothing about that, and that is the key language for defining 'legally' guarding

Camron Rust Sat Mar 31, 2018 04:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020121)
Whatever the semantics, I don't agree at all that if you have legal guarding position and a flyer takes off at an angle to the path he was on, you can then slide to the new path and take a charge. That's simply not right. And as seen in A.R 239, there is a distinction between 'guarding' and 'guarding conform(ing) to legal guarding principles'.

I only quoted the 'facing the opponent' language because that was all that was in the initial LGP wording that was relevant to the discussion. This isn't rocket science.

You're trying to make your case with an entirely different play. Stick to the situation being discussed.

Again, we are NOT talking about a shooter jumping in some direction where the defender is not but subsequently slides into the new path after the shooter jumps. That would be a block all day.

We ARE talking about a situation where the shooter jumps at the defender and would hit the defender (perhaps left of center) but the defender moves over a few inches and the shooter hits the defender anyway (perhaps right of center). That can be a charge even though the defender moved. It is about being in the path before the jump, not being absolutely stationary before the jump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1020121)

Again, think of a point guard moving east/west covered by someone that is to his north towards the rim, but guarding him at a 90 degree angle to his path because his primary concern is staying between the dribbler and the basket. Are you taking the position that that isn't LGP? Of course it is. "guarding' in the rule book says nothing about whether that guarded player has the ball as well.

Unfortunately, these rule books aren't written by attorneys, they are written by basketball guys, so there is inconsistent wording from time to time. Yes , 'guarding' says in the path, but initial LGP says nothing about that, and that is the key language for defining 'legally' guarding

You do realize that legal GUARDING position is a form of guarding, right?? As such, it must also meet the definitions of guarding. That is apparent when you consider that LGP is a sub bullet under GUARDING. LGP is a special case of guarding that allows extra privileges that guarding alone does not.

And again, what exactly is in the path? I'd argue that staying between the dribbler and the basket is one definition of path since that is where they dribbler would like to go even if the dribbler isn't, at that moment, moving in that direction....along with being in their direction of travel.

If we were to strictly take your definition of path, all it would take for a dribbler to negate LGP of a defender would be to take one step in any direction not towards the defender then drive into the defender.

If we were to take your definition of path, it would be impossible to obtain LGP on a stationary opponent...and that would be a silly conclusion.

just another ref Sat Mar 31, 2018 05:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1020122)
We ARE talking about a situation where the shooter jumps at the defender and would hit the defender (perhaps left of center) but the defender moves over a few inches and the shooter hits the defender anyway (perhaps right of center). That can be a charge even though the defender moved. It is about being in the path before the jump, not being absolutely stationary before the jump.

Very well said, and to further state what should be obvious, the contact does not have to be in the center of the defender's chest to have a charge.

canuckrefguy Sat Mar 31, 2018 06:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1020119)
Then you need to watch it again. That is not the big takeaway. The big takeaway was did the defender get in front of the shooter before the shooter jumps. If the defender wasn't absolutely still, they still get the charge if they made it into the path first.

Regardless of the wording in that quiz, the plays where he talks about the defender moving making it a block ALL have the defender moving INTO the shooter.

I think you misunderstood what my comment was and/or are in error on what Adamsí remarks accompanying that quiz were.

BillyMac Sat Mar 31, 2018 06:35pm

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 
All of this talk about legal guarding position got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

Before a sideline throwin by A1, B5 fronts post player A5 near the elbow. B5 is facing the basket. A1 inbounds to A2 who immediately dribbles toward the basket and runs into B5, hitting B5 square in the back, causing B5 to fall onto the court. B5 has not moved an inch since before the throwin.

Since B5 never had legal guarding position (never faced A2), is this never a player control foul on A2, and always a blocking foul on B5?

Or not, because B5 was never guarding A2, but was guarding A5?

(Note: I'm trying to scrutinize the definitions of guarding, and legal guarding position.)

just another ref Sat Mar 31, 2018 08:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1020127)
All of this talk about legal guarding position got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

Before a sideline throwin by A1, B5 fronts post player A5 near the elbow. B5 is facing the basket. A1 inbounds to A2 who immediately dribbles toward the basket and runs into B5, hitting B5 square in the back, causing B5 to fall onto the court. B5 has not moved an inch since before the throwin.

Since B5 never had legal guarding position (never faced A2), is this never a player control foul on A2, and always a blocking foul on B5?

Or not, because B5 was never guarding A2, but was guarding A5?

(Note: I'm trying to scrutinize the definitions of guarding, and legal guarding position.)


This is not a LGP situation. Read the part about each player being entitled to a spot on the court as long as it was achieved legally............or something to that effect.

BillyMac Sat Mar 31, 2018 08:52pm

Right Guard ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 1020133)
This is not a LGP situation ...

... because B5 is not guarding A2?

Also: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the
player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

Camron Rust Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1020127)
All of this talk about legal guarding position got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

Before a sideline throwin by A1, B5 fronts post player A5 near the elbow. B5 is facing the basket. A1 inbounds to A2 who immediately dribbles toward the basket and runs into B5, hitting B5 square in the back, causing B5 to fall onto the court. B5 has not moved an inch since before the throwin.

Since B5 never had legal guarding position (never faced A2), is this never a player control foul on A2, and always a blocking foul on B5?

Or not, because B5 was never guarding A2, but was guarding A5?

(Note: I'm trying to scrutinize the definitions of guarding, and legal guarding position.)

B5 was "guarding"...which only requires that B5 be in the path of the opponent. However, B5 did not have LGP. Without LGP, B5 does not have the liberty to be moving (even laterally) if there is contact and B5 doesn't have the liberty of jumping. If B5 remains planted, it will be a charge. If B5 does any of the things that LGP allows, then B5 has blocked.

BillyMac Sun Apr 01, 2018 09:50am

Guarding ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1020136)
B5 was "guarding"...which only requires that B5 be in the path of the opponent.

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard
and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is
entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first
without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder,
hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position
if contact occurs.

BillyMac Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:26am

Liberties ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1020136)
B5 was "guarding"...which only requires that B5 be in the path of the opponent. However, B5 did not have LGP. Without LGP, B5 does not have the liberty to be moving (even laterally) if there is contact and B5 doesn't have the liberty of jumping. If B5 remains planted, it will be a charge. If B5 does any of the things that LGP allows, then B5 has blocked.

Thanks Camron Rust. Nice explanation.

jeremy341a Mon Apr 02, 2018 02:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 1020117)
I personally go block on any 50/50 calls (tie goes to the offense).

I'm the exact opposite. I don't want to entice the offense to keep barreling into collisions.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1