End of the game block/charge play (Video)

[JRutledge]

Peace

[CJP]

Good call. We don't have the restricted area so these are a little bit easier for me to officiate.

[bob jenkins]

"If it was a charge in the first minute, it's a charge in the last minute."

[LRZ]

"We don't have the restricted area so these are a LOT easier for me to officiate."

[CJP]

Originally Posted by LRZ

"We don't have the restricted area so these are a LOT easier for me to officiate."

Meh... I have officiated in a state that had it and I stand by original statement.

[LRZ]

OK, I wasn't arguing with you. I should have removed the quotation marks: one ref's "little" is another ref's "lot."

[bucky]

I can see where a lot of officials would have:

1) passed on making a call
2) called a block due to wide stance (too wide for a screener but not a defender) or arms not being completely vertical

Nice to see the official make a stand and call a PC at such an important part of the game. Would have liked to see the hand behind the head to make it clearer.

[SC Official]

It was pretty clear to me that he was punching the other direction and not counting the basket. Not sure what the weak "hand behind the head" mechanic would have done there. Maybe he could've emphatically waved off the shot, but there still probably would have been confusion.

The call was correct, and it wasn't even close IMO.

[BryanV21]

Great call, and despite the announcers being confused for some reason, the official's call was clear to me.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X304F using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

Correct call, absolutely. This is why I combine the approved hand behind the head mechanic with a strong punch with the hand that I used to stop the clock.

[Rich]

Hand behind the head is fine at the table, but is a horribly weak mechanic at the spot. Obvious to me that he was punching it the other way.

[Rufus]

Normally when a call is this obvious (i.e., when viewing it in real time) it gets me worried that I'm missing something. Luckily in slo-mo it's confirmed to be a great call.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by SC Official

It was pretty clear to me that he was punching the other direction and not counting the basket. Not sure what the weak "hand behind the head" mechanic would have done there. Maybe he could've emphatically waved off the shot, but there still probably would have been confusion.

The call was correct, and it wasn't even close IMO.

Definitely a clear PC, and a clear PC signal....to an official. Maybe less clear to everyone else.

Agree though that the "proper" mechanic looks awful at the spot. Waving off the shot would have been the best way to emphatically clarify the call.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

… Agree though that the "proper" mechanic looks awful at the spot. Waving off the shot would have been the best way to emphatically clarify the call.

This ^^

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Definitely a clear PC, and a clear PC signal....to an official. Maybe less clear to everyone else.

Agree though that the "proper" mechanic looks awful at the spot. Waving off the shot would have been the best way to emphatically clarify the call.

I agree. Why does NFHS not go with the times and create (or borrow from other levels) better/more descriptive mechanics? SD has approved of high school officials using certain college signals (punch for a PC/TC foul, hit to the head, legally walled up, etc.), and demonstrates these signals in the last mechanics video that the SDHSAA released. Other states have other changes to NFHS mechanics that make things better (no long switches in TX and MI, 3-person timeout positions in 2-person and walk and talk allowed in TX, walk and talk, 2-handed reporting (before it was legalized by NFHS), and descriptive signals (unofficially) allowed in MD) , so I suspect that NFHS might not understand what toils the officials actually need to get their job done (behavioral warning only came out in 16-17, but was likely unofficially done before then).