Fun With Legal Guarding Position ...

[JRutledge]

PC foul. The defender even stops moving and gets run over. This is one of the easier ones based on the endline angle. The Center guessed.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The Center guessed.

Locally, we've been taught that when there's a train wreck, and when a call just has has to made, and when one is ill-prepared to make that call (for whatever reason, sudden surprise, bad angle, straight-lined, out of position, etc.), if there's contact on the defender's torso (as in this video), to make an educated guess and err on the side of calling a player control foul.

[JRutledge]

I did not say to not make a call, but we default too often to the defender who did something wrong. This is a clear PC foul from the end-line look. That is not the look he had as the Center. And because he did not position adjust, he really did not see the play clearly. He was straight-lined. And as a philosophy when I have doubt, I am calling a PC foul because to me it cleans up your game better than calling a block. Then the offensive players think they can go into defenders no matter what and get calls. Again, just my opinion.

Peace

[MechanicGuy]

I thought it was a block from the first look. It looked like a bit of a hip thrust to initiate contact.

The endline angle proves that wrong. Easy PC from that look.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

I thought it was a block from the first look. It looked like a bit of a hip thrust to initiate contact.

The endline angle proves that wrong. Easy PC from that look.

I thought the same thing. Relative motion can be deceptive. When the offensive player is moving much faster than the retreating or stationary defender, it can make it appear as though the defender was moving toward the offensive player at contact.

This is something I’ve worked to become much more mindful of in recent seasons, and something I review on video. It has helped a lot.

I think this is also part of the reason loud mouths like Jay Bilas think officials call too many PC fouls. To ignorant announcers, they don’t “look” like PC fouls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Relative motion can be deceptive.

Why is Albert Einstein posting under crosscountry55's username?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I thought the same thing. Relative motion can be deceptive. When the offensive player is moving much faster than the retreating or stationary defender, it can make it appear as though the defender was moving toward the offensive player at contact.

In reality, it is almost impossible for a retreating defender to commit a block. Try running backwards without momentarily having both feet on the floor at some point. And, if the defender was retreating, that usually implies they were facing the opponent with the opponent coming at them.

As long as the opponent doesn't get head/shoulders by the defender before contact, it is almost guaranteed that the defender both had LGP and, if they were retreating toward the endline behind them, even if they were also moving sideways, were not moving toward the opponent and legally maintained LGP.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In reality, it is almost impossible for a retreating defender to commit a block. Try running backwards without momentarily having both feet on the floor at some point. And, if the defender was retreating, that usually implies they were facing the opponent with the opponent coming at them. As long as the opponent doesn't get head/shoulders by the defender before contact, it is almost guaranteed that the defender both had LGP and, if they were retreating toward the endline behind them, even if they were also moving sideways, were not moving toward the opponent and legally maintained LGP.

Good explanation. Thanks.

Posts like this are why the Forum can be a great resource for inexperienced (or even experienced) officials.

Young'uns and whippersnappers should pay close attention.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... but we default too often to the defender ...

Agree.

If I'm ill-prepared to make a train wreck call that absolutely has to be made (too much contact and can't pass with a no call), ill-prepared for whatever reason, sudden surprise, bad angle, straight-lined, out of position, bad partner (swallows whistle), partner out of position, sun in eyes through a gym window (we actually have a gym with this problem), etc.), and if I also fail (for the same reasons above) to see contact/no contact on the defender's torso (not even getting a little peek at our usual best guess "rule of thumb" clue, contact on torso), my default guess call with players on the floor and with me having absolutely no clue as to how they got there, right, or wrong, is a block.

Only happens once, or twice, a year, if that, but some plays require a whistle because a no-call (no guess) in such plays would only encourage subsequent rough play.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... if there's contact on the defender's torso ... to make an educated guess and err on the side of calling a player control foul.

... otherwise (no contact on the defender's torso, or can't observe contact/no contact on the defender's torso) I rule (guess) a block.

All by local custom.

[BillyMac]

In block/charge situations, when we have players on the floor and we have absolutely no clue as to how they got there, I wonder if there is a statistically better guess, block, or charge?

In millions of block/charge situations over the years that have been correctly adjudicated, are defenders more likely to illegally contact ball handlers, or are ball handlers more likely to illegally contact defenders?

Can't answer more blocks in a game than charges because some blocks may not be in a block/charge situation (illegal screens).

I think that you can see where I'm going with this. Our local custom in block/charge situations, when we have players on the floor and we have absolutely no clue as to how they got there, and haven't observed contact, or no contact, on the defender's torso, and can't pass with a no-call because it would encourage subsequent rough play, we locally default to block.

Are we more likely to be correct, or incorrect, with the "blind" block guess?

Of course, it's always better to anticipate the play, know the rules, and be in the best position to make the correct call, but "stuff" happens, and sometimes the "train wreck" whistle has to be sounded, followed by a "blind" guess.

[Raymond]

You have absolutely no clue how players got to the floor and you are willing to indiscriminately give a player their 5th foul?

If I have no clue what happened, I'm not calling anything and telling the coaches I totally missed what happened. If I saw parts of the play or saw it late, I'm using context clues such as how the defender fell or if the offensive player had changed his path, etc. to help determine which way I'm guessing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You have absolutely no clue how players got to the floor and you are willing to indiscriminately give a player their 5th foul?

Good point.

Our local interpreter (as well as all past local interpreters) is vehemently adamant that we have to put a whistle on these train wreck plays, even if we have to guess.

Originally Posted by Raymond

If I saw parts of the play or saw it late, I'm using context clues such as how the defender fell or if the offensive player had changed his path, etc. to help determine which way I'm guessing.

Totally agree, but this isn't flying "blind", but an educated guess based on observations.

Apart from theory, in real games, I doubt that any of us, no matter what the situation is, no matter how badly out of position we are, no matter how surprised we are, no matter how bad our partner is, are completely oblivious ("blind") to some sort of a context clue.