Fun With A Block And Maybe A Charge ...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

That is certainly one way to look at it. When I was talking about a simultaneous foul, I was taking liberty from the definition of such that allows the two fouls to happen at approximately the same time.

But if you were to go false double here (again, this is all hypothetical and on the basis of two emphatic signals that would be hard for a crew to extricate itself from), that could certainly be appropriate (and one of the few times a false double foul did not have at least one technical foul involved). Now just imagine if the offensive team were in the bonus; they’d shoot a bonus with the lane cleared followed by the defensive team getting a backcourt throw-in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The part that you write about the administration if the bonus is involved is not correct. Unless the offensive player is in the act of shooting, the first defensive foul would make the ball immediately dead, so there would not be a PC foul and the bonus would be awarded as normal with players along the lane.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Unless the offensive player is in the act of shooting...

He wasn’t?

Edit: Now that I think about it, since he’s in the act of shooting (which I would argue he was), in a FDF situation he gets two shots with the lane cleared regardless, right? Bonus doesn’t play into it (duh), and even if the ball goes in, the PCF negates the field goal which is what brings us back to two FTs.

Bob’s eyes must be rolling into the back of his head right about now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Most here know that I prefer Charges to Blocks. This play is a difficult one to call and I will be honest I think that it would be very difficult to rule that a Charging Foul. I honestly think that the most logical call is that that W20 Pushed B5 rather that saying that B5 Charged into W2 before W20 Pushed B5.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I honestly think that the most logical call is that that W20 Pushed B5 rather that saying that B5 Charged into W2 before W20 Pushed B5.

That's not what happened, it was different order of contact events. B5 "contacted" W2 after W20 "contacted" B5. That's the order of what actually happened. We can always debate whether, or not, a foul, or fouls, should have been charged, but we can't change the order of "contact" events.

[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO Eyes Only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a player control foul.

This is a tough play. Does White #2 establish LGP? Does Blue #5 run him over? Does White #20 create illegal contact and accelerate the shooter on the crash?

Blue #5 appears to establish the right foot as the pivot foot, then lift that foot before releasing the ball to start his dribble, which should have been ruled a traveling violation.

The lead does make a good decision not to rotate as the ball was passed to the midcourt area. The lead is responsible for block/charge plays in the lane and identifying secondary defenders. (Manual p. 20 7.d, page 35 graphic)

In this play, the secondary defender White #2 does establish a legal guarding position (two feet on the playing court, facing the dribbler). The question becomes what impact the primary defender (White #20) had on the contact between the shooter (Blue #5) and the secondary defender.

If White #20, in an attempt to block the shot from behind, contacted Blue #5 from behind that caused him to charge into White #5, then the foul should be charged to White #20 for pushing. Since the play originated near the top of the lane in the Trail’s primary coverage area (PCA), the Trail official should stay connected to the primary defender as the play develops into the lane area. The Center official (not pictured) could also assist with this contact.

From the camera angle provided, it appears the primary defender (White #20) is able to get his hand on the ball to block the shot as Blue #5 is attempting to try for goal. It does not appear that White #20 was on the shooter's back and contributed to the subsequent contact between the shooter and secondary defender.

If this is the case, the correct ruling would be a player control foul on Blue #5 for the illegal contact he committed on the torso of the secondary defender, White #2.

Please Note: On plays such as this, there are times a false double foul situation could occur. If the defender B1 had illegally contacted the airborne shooter (A1) and then the airborne shooter (A1) then charges into the secondary defender (B2), both fouls would need to be charged. Many officials think only the first foul would be charged. However, If the first foul by the B1 does not contribute to the subsequent contact committed by A1 on the torso of B2, by rule, this is a false double foul, and a foul would be charged to both players.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): Player Control Foul: 68%; Blocking Foul: 32% (including me).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

He wasn’t?

Edit: Now that I think about it, since he’s in the act of shooting (which I would argue he was), in a FDF situation he gets two shots with the lane cleared regardless, right? Bonus doesn’t play into it (duh), and even if the ball goes in, the PCF negates the field goal which is what brings us back to two FTs.

Bob’s eyes must be rolling into the back of his head right about now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you’ve got it, sir!