Duke/Kansas Block ?
 

What do you guys have?
Can you make the case that the defender didn’t get his torso square
for “initial” LGP. Then moved slightly after the shooter left his feet
hence the block call. Been asking most of my ref friends and
it’s 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.

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

Bang-bang play, but PCF in my mind.

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

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

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

That said, I haven’t watched the play since I DVR’d it on Sunday night. Maybe I don’t 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, didn’t 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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....

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

Peace

Former NCAA Men's Coordinator grades it....
 

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

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.

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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You"ve had a lot of bad partners.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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....

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."

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 that’s what everyone else does. To flex a post count is pathetic.

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

A Truly Great Basketball Official ...
 

Confucius says, "Anticipate the play, not the call".

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?

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

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.

"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:)

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>

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."

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.

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.

"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.

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

Common sense if not literal.

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.

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

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.

Duck, Duck, Goose ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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

The basic definition of guarding says otherwise.

The rule....
It then goes on to define what further it takes to obtain and maintain LGP.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

[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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

Right Guard ...
 

... 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.

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.

Guarding ...
 

Liberties ...
 

Thanks Camron Rust. Nice explanation.

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