Fun With Being Run Over By A Truck …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

Is this a player control foul? Did the defender obtain a legal guarding position? Does the Lead official use the proper signal to indicate the foul?

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...xpL8QOUg%3D%3D

Three choices: This is a blocking foul. This is a player control foul. No foul (play on).

My comment: This is a player control foul. White #3 obtained legal guarding position and Red #31 charged into her. Lead did not start her signal sequence with a stop the clock signal.

Note: White #3 had a lot of courage and deserves a lot of credit for hanging in there when confronted by a much larger player who had built up quite a head of steam. Kudos to White #3.

[bob jenkins]

Pc.

[JRutledge]

PC foul.

She comes forward but stops.

Peace

[Raymond]

If the offensive player had been airborne, I may have considered block because of the defensive movement. But since the offensive player was grounded, it is definitely a PCF.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Make The Call Video

Is this a player control foul? Did the defender obtain a legal guarding position? Does the Lead official use the proper signal to indicate the foul?

Count me among those that would call a PCF because the defender established legal guarding position.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My comment: This is a player control foul. White #3 obtained legal guarding position and Red #31 charged into her. Lead did not start her signal sequence with a stop the clock signal.

I'm not sure what state this is (Indiana, maybe?), but some states have their own mechanics deviations. If the state requires a stop the clock signal, then I'd agree one should be given.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I'm not sure what state this is (Indiana, maybe?), but some states have their own mechanics deviations. If the state requires a stop the clock signal, then I'd agree one should be given.

It is Indiana.

Dollars to doughnuts, ilyazhito will know.

[ilyazhito]

South Dakota also allows a punch for both the player control and team control foul signals.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I'm not sure what state this is (Indiana, maybe?), but some states have their own mechanics deviations. If the state requires a stop the clock signal, then I'd agree one should be given.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It is Indiana.

Dollars to doughnuts, ilyazhito will know.

Indiana uses pure NF mechanics as far as I know. Never been told either way.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

South Dakota also allows a punch for both the player control and team control foul signals.

Not Indiana, but do I still get a dollar?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Make The Call Video

Is this a player control foul? Did the defender obtain a legal guarding position? Does the Lead official use the proper signal to indicate the foul?

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...xpL8QOUg%3D%3D

Three choices: This is a blocking foul. This is a player control foul. No foul (play on).

My comment: This is a player control foul. White #3 obtained legal guarding position and Red #31 charged into her. Lead did not start her signal sequence with a stop the clock signal.

Note: White #3 had a lot of courage and deserves a lot of credit for hanging in there when confronted by a much larger player who had built up quite a head of steam. Kudos to White #3.

I would have expected my first year officiating students to have got this call correct: CHARGE!!

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

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

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...xpL8QOUg%3D%3D

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

In this play, The defender is in the path of the ball handler, has both feet on the floor with the front of her torso facing the opponent when contact ensues on the defender's torso. By rule, the defender obtained a legal guarding position. (4-23-2) The Lead official has a very good angle to view the contact and properly rules this contact as a player control foul. (4-19-6)

The Lead does improperly uses the team control foul signal at the site of the foul. The proper signal would be the player control foul signal. (IAABO Manual p. 239)

Many respondents considered this a blocking foul because the defender moved forward just before contact. This would be correct if the defender were still moving forward when the contact occurred. In slow motion, it shows a better view of the defender moving forward to a “new spot” on the floor, then stopping before the contact occurs on her torso. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. (4-23-1) Since the defender got to the spot first and her opponent had the ball, the defender did not need to give the ball handler time and distance to avoid the contact. (4-23-4a)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a player control foul 82% (including me). This is a blocking foul 18%. No foul (play on) 0%.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by 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.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...xpL8QOUg%3D%3D

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

In this play, The defender is in the path of the ball handler, has both feet on the floor with the front of her torso facing the opponent when contact ensues on the defender's torso. By rule, the defender obtained a legal guarding position. (4-23-2) The Lead official has a very good angle to view the contact and properly rules this contact as a player control foul. (4-19-6)

The Lead does improperly uses the team control foul signal at the site of the foul. The proper signal would be the player control foul signal. (IAABO Manual p. 239)

Many respondents considered this a blocking foul because the defender moved forward just before contact. This would be correct if the defender were still moving forward when the contact occurred. In slow motion, it shows a better view of the defender moving forward to a “new spot” on the floor, then stopping before the contact occurs on her torso. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. (4-23-1) Since the defender got to the spot first and her opponent had the ball, the defender did not need to give the ball handler time and distance to avoid the contact. (4-23-4a)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a player control foul 82% (including me). This is a blocking foul 18%. No foul (play on) 0%.

Billy:

I am shocked the 18% of our fellow IAABO brothers and sisters got this incorrect. Especially since I helped the late Ed Ferrigno give block/charge seminars at IAABO Annual Meetings as well watched the late Edgar Cartotto and the late Danny Doss give block/charge seminars at IAABO Annual Meetings and Camps where I was a staffer.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am shocked the 18% of our fellow IAABO brothers and sisters got this incorrect.

Many respondents considered this a blocking foul because the defender moved forward just before contact. This would be correct if the defender were still moving forward when the contact occurred. In slow motion, it shows a better view of the defender moving forward to a “new spot” on the floor, then stopping before the contact occurs on her torso.

Maybe they didn't take advantage of the slow motion view?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Many respondents considered this a blocking foul because the defender moved forward just before contact. This would be correct if the defender were still moving forward when the contact occurred. In slow motion, it shows a better view of the defender moving forward to a “new spot” on the floor, then stopping before the contact occurs on her torso.

Maybe they didn't take advantage of the slow motion view?

And those who had attended Ed, Edgar, and Danny's presentations would know that per NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules that this is a: CHARGE!!

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

And those who had attended Ed, Edgar, and Danny's presentations would know that per NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules that this is a: CHARGE!!

If one just sees the defender moving forward and doesn't see the defender stopping short of contact, and just incorrectly sees the defender moving forward with contact, one can be fooled into incorrectly believing that this is a block. Even the IAABO "Gang of Four" admitted that it was easier to see this in slow motion.

Everybody is familiar with slow motion. It's how Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. runs on the court. Wait ... I'm being told ... You too? Me too? Never mind.