Video: SE Lousiana v. Pudue-FW

[Raymond]

Hey Jeff, I'm posting the block/charge play from your YouTube page.



Another play where so far I seem to be in the minority.

[SC Official]

I have a blocking foul in real time. Defender's torso is pretty clearly still moving into the offensive player upon contact.

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I have a blocking foul in real time. Defender's torso is pretty clearly still moving into the offensive player upon contact.

Have to agree, looks like the defender established LGP outside of the RA but then continued to move forward into the defender. If he had stayed vertical would have been a charge or little to no contact.

[ilyazhito]

In real time, it is a charge. The defender has legal guarding position outside the RA, 2 feet on the floor, facing his opponent, and does not move toward the opponent before the shooter goes airborne.

[Camron Rust]

First look....block...defender still moving forward.

Second look....block.

Third look....block.

All for the same reasons.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

In real time, it is a charge. The defender has legal guarding position outside the RA, 2 feet on the floor, facing his opponent, and does not move toward the opponent before the shooter goes airborne.

I don't ever see him stop moving forward. Yes, his feet stop, but it is the movement of his torso that is relevant for block charge...the same as if the defender leans to the side. His torso continues to move all the way until contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

First look....block...defender still moving forward.



Second look....block.



Third look....block.



All for the same reasons.

I agree. On FB everyone was saying it was a PC, implying the the defender was merely firming up.

IMO, it's the defender's forward movement that's creates the contact.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

Interesting. Maybe it's because the officials on Facebook were looking at the feet first to define legal guarding position, and then making the ruling based on whether a legal position was maintained. By rule, the criteria to establish legal guarding position is 2 feet on the floor facing the opponent inbounds. The defender has met these criteria. No matter how ridiculous the play looks, by rule, this play is a charge, unless you were to argue that the defender's torso movement caused him to lose legal guarding position. The only possible fouls I could see on the defender here are either going from A to B (this doesn't happen, the defender's feet are stationary at the time of contact), a foul for violating the vertical cylinder (the torso is behind the feet, and the contact is offense initiated), or lower-body displacement (the walking-under signal), and none of these can be seen in real time, so I will stand by my original ruling.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Interesting. Maybe it's because the officials on Facebook were looking at the feet first to define legal guarding position, and then making the ruling based on whether a legal position was maintained. By rule, the criteria to establish legal guarding position is 2 feet on the floor facing the opponent inbounds. The defender has met these criteria. No matter how ridiculous the play looks, by rule, this play is a charge, unless you were to argue that the defender's torso movement caused him to lose legal guarding position. The only possible fouls I could see on the defender here are either going from A to B (this doesn't happen, the defender's feet are stationary at the time of contact), a foul for violating the vertical cylinder (the torso is behind the feet, and the contact is offense initiated), or lower-body displacement (the walking-under signal), and none of these can be seen in real time, so I will stand by my original ruling.

Sorry, this just isn't a charge. The defender loses LGP by moving forward into contact. He does go from A to B (the body, not the feet). The feet mark the time LGP is obtained, the body marks the position LGP is obtained. And it was trivially easy to see in real time. Just look at the torso, which is what you should be looking at and it jumps out at you. To come up with a block isn't a matter of judgement, it is a misapplication of the rule.

The rule that is applicable:

c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... The only possible fouls I could see on the defender here are either going from A to B (this doesn't happen, the defender's feet are stationary at the time of contact), a foul for violating the vertical cylinder (the torso is behind the feet, and the contact is offense initiated), or lower-body displacement (the walking-under signal), and none of these can be seen in real time, so I will stand by my original ruling.

The contact is not offense initiated. The contact occurs when B1's shoulder moves forward into A1's lower torso/leg. A1's leg gets knocked backwards.

In real time, I saw this as a block based on the movement of A1's body after contact. The slow motion replay confirmed it for me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Jay R]

The defender didn’t have to keep moving. He was there in time, yet for some he kept moving forward.

He’d argue he got the call anyway, lol

[JRutledge]

I have a defender planted before the shooter goes airborne. His body is still adjusting, but for me, that is not enough for a blocking foul. And my friend who made the call was in a great position to see the entire play. I might be in the minority, but I like the call. Unless his feet were moving forward or he was leaning in the vertical space of the shooter, PC foul to me all the way.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sorry, this just isn't a charge. The defender loses LGP by moving forward into contact. He does go from A to B (the body, not the feet). The feet mark the time LGP is obtained, the body marks the position LGP is obtained. And it was trivially easy to see in real time. Just look at the torso, which is what you should be looking at and it jumps out at you. To come up with a block isn't a matter of judgement, it is a misapplication of the rule.

The rule that is applicable:

I guess it may be "technically" a rule misapplication, but no one is losing games or getting fired from a conference over erring on a block/charge play, especially one this close that clearly people are split on. It's a judgment call for all intents and purposes.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I guess it may be "technically" a rule misapplication, but no one is losing games or getting fired from a conference over erring on a block/charge play, especially one this close that clearly people are split on. It's a judgment call for all intents and purposes.

True.

But consider this....

If a player has his feet in one spot and leans left or right to get contact, do we not consider that a block since the player leaned beyond the space the torso was in.

If a player sticks his/her feet out to the side and they move their torso over after the shooter is airborne, we call a block since they didn't get to that spot first....the feet were down in time, but the body wasn't in place in time.

Why would forward movement be any different? (It isn't)

Additionally, the feet can always be moving (neither foot is required to be kept in place) and there is no specific requirement about feet position anywhere...they can have the feet 6' apart and still have LGP, but that LGP isn't 6' wide, it is the width of the shoulders. It is the body that marks position.