The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 03:18pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,219
Video: SE Lousiana v. Pudue-FW

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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,906
I have a blocking foul in real time. Defender's torso is pretty clearly still moving into the offensive player upon contact.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 05:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 08:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 913
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 08:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,132
First look....block...defender still moving forward.

Second look....block.

Third look....block.

All for the same reasons.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 08:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 08:33pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2020, 10:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 913
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 01, 2020, 02:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
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:
Quote:
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 01, 2020, 07:49am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
... 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
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 01, 2020, 07:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,048
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
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 01, 2020, 10:57am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,942
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 01, 2020, 11:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 01, 2020, 03:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Video Request: Team Warning for Delay (Video added) crosscountry55 Basketball 6 Sun Nov 20, 2016 05:44pm
Rhode Island/ GA Tech Video Steal and Dunk (Video) Bp73 Basketball 7 Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:49pm
Video request: Mercer basket with 1:07 left in 2nd half (Video) Nevadaref Basketball 13 Sat Mar 22, 2014 03:04pm
Video Request Indiana Miami: Foul causes a travel (Video Added) Sharpshooternes Basketball 12 Fri May 24, 2013 04:44pm
Video request: OVC Title game Murray St. vs. Belmont (Video Added) JRutledge Basketball 8 Sat Mar 23, 2013 06:18pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1