Block or Charge? Non-torso contact
 

These types of plays can sometimes be difficult to judge, IMHO.
Possible legal defender and the offensive player changes direction via a euro-step and makes contact with the defender outside the torso, normally with the shoulder. Defender falls to the ground and the offensive player flails away and puts up an attempt/shot.
What do you have?

I try not to read too deep into the rule book and there are so many different philosophies on block/charges that come into this mix.
Referee the defense
What did the defender do wrong?
Players don't have to "take" a charge
Offensive initiated contact (OIC)
Torso contact for charges, shoulder contact blocks

And obviously the defense can move (not forward) as long as they're essentially not undercutting the shooters start for the attempt. But what about the offense? They have the onus to avoid contact by stopping or changing direction, in order to try to get their body past the torso of the defender. So, does the attempt to change direction and OIC into the shoulder of a legal defender change this call in either way?

Seems as though this contact ends up in block calls the majority of the time, at most/all levels. I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this call, these theories, and our never ending battle for call consistency across the world/nation/state/chapter.

That's wrong

No it does not.

Then "most" are wrong. We properly called this a PC foul yesterday.

What causes the officials being fooled into calling some of these blocks is the defender flopping from the minimal contact. We have offensive players that are spinning away from the defender or changing directions and there is minimal contact to the shoulder and the defender throws himself backward like they've been hit by Ronnie Lott. Since we know the contact should not have created that reaction, the defense loses the benefit of the doubt.

I've seen a lot of plays on video this season where players embellishing contact actually works against them. Had a game this season where we twice missed illegal by a defender into the legs of a ballhandler because the ballhandler threw his head back distracting our concentration from the point of contact.

I had a play last week where a defender bumps a ballhandler from behind and I call a foul. I look at the video and the contact was incidental, but because the defender threw his head back like it was a big collision, I thought the contact was more severe than it actually was.

I agree. That's why a flop warning in high school basketball is overdue. It has eliminated much of the tomfoolery in men's college games around flopping, does not cost anything, and has a clear progression of penalties. If officials are willing to use the official flop warning early and often, teams will get the message.

Words Of The Wise ...
 

Realistic officiating by a very experienced basketball official.

Pay attention young'uns and everybody else.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...1a24bb9b6a.jpg

Look That Up In Your Funk & Wagnalls (Dan Rowan, Laugh In, 1968) ......
 

I looked it up in my Funk & Wagnalls.

Torso: the main part of the human body not including the head, arms, and legs.

4-7-2: Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponent’s torso

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gg-Rwg6lrg...0/torso_05.jpg

Is the defender displaced by the contact or does the defender fall down in an attempt to draw an offensive foul?

The first is a charge, the second is a no-call.

Problem is sometimes "most" are pretty high up on the ladder....js
I don't disagree, but much like verticality and handchecks...when you're outside of the majority but correct on the call it can make things difficult in our profession and you get the consistency spiel from the coaches.

My personal philosophies here are legal defender and OIC. And then as discussed, does the OIC warrant charge or was the defender selling snake oil to @BillyMac. :)

I had an issue with a kid flopping earlier this month. I didn't get the chance to warn him before another breakaway play where I was Lead. He fell backwards in an attempt to fool me for the charge call with zero (I mean ZERO!) contact. I called a block. I didn't love that the ball went in and had to score the bucket, but....I reported and told the coach - sorry but there was zero contact on that play and your player flat out flopped. I call a block or a technical there, so please let him know he needs to stop flopping. Coach had no problem with that.

Just because the coach did not have a problem does not indicate that the way you adjudicated this play is correct. The solution should never be to make up rules. There is no basis for calling a block on this play.

It is not a TF for "flopping", it is a TF for faking being fouled.

If B1 has a LGP against A1 and while in his/her LGP A1, makes contact with any part of B1's body that tells us that A1 breached B1's Cylinder of Verticality meaning that if a Foul is to be charged it should be charged to A1.

We have all seen videos and have officiated games where B1 has a LGP against A1 and A1 breaches B1's Cylinder of Verticality. The contact looks minimal and yet B1 falls backwards even falling to the Floor sometimes. Many people describe B1 as "flopping". Who knows for sure if B1 over acted from A1's contact? Whether or not B1 is guilty or not of overacting he/she cannot be charged with any type of Foul (Personal or Technical) because B1 was in a LGP when A1 breached B1's Cylinder of Verticality.

When it comes to faking being fouled. I officiated H.S. soccer for 14 years. Basketball players are not the actors that soccer players are.

I officiated basketball for 46 years and have watched Mark, Jr. officiate basketball for another 5 years and I cannot remember ever seeing a basketball player fake being fouled.

MTD, Sr.

As Elusive As the Multiple Foul ...
 

Since the mid-1960s, I've been playing, observing, coaching, and officiating basketball games, and I've never, ever, observed a player be charged with a technical foul for faking being fouled.

If a player in the forest fakes being fouled, and is not charged with a technical foul for faking being fouled, does he make a sound?

I have given those technical fouls before when it is an obvious case of faking.

When In Rome ...
 

Fouls plural? Wow! Must be a local Maryland, D.C., Virginia thing.

I don't disagree with that rules logic but the coach validation didn't provide confirmation for my decision. I'll admit that it was a poor call to make in hindsight...where the 2 pts was penalty enough for the bad defense.
Better decision would've been to try talking to either of them first in attempt to curb the issue. I think that too many people just continue with no calls and allow it to happen rather than addressing the issue in teachable moments so it doesn't become a problem down the line.

Better Be Careful ...
 

While I have never pulled the pin on a technical foul, nor have I ever observed the pin being pulled, I have orally warned a few players over the years, "You know it's technical foul for faking a foul, better be careful".