Block/Charge (here we go again)

JAdams · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 10, 2000, 02:24pm

At the risk of opening up a heated debate on the infamous block/charge call, I'd like to hear a couple of opinions on this situation.

At this week's pre-season association meeting our Rules Interpreter got on us collectively for not calling charges correctly. He focused on the situation when a post defender (A1) establishes legal guarding position first, followed by a driving offensive player (B1) driving hard toward the hole. As B1 leaves his feet, A1 also leaves his feet by jumping straight up (arms and hands also straight up) trying to block B1's shot. A1 contacts B1 with hard hip-to-hip contact while both are in the air. Our Rules Interpreter said this should be a player control foul on B1 because of the principle of A1's verticality...going straight up. He said we HS refs almost always kick the call by calling a block on A1. He challenged us to make the proper (but unpopular and misunderstood) call of a charge on B1.

I can just see B1's coach coming unglued on this call. Comments?

Brian Watson · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 10, 2000, 02:58pm

If I am reading this correctly, and the defender goes straight up, it's good D and I call the charge. He still has legal defensive position even if he jumps, and the other player did drive into him. Coaches come unglued anyhow on a block/charge situation why would this be different?

mick · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 10, 2000, 04:11pm

JAdams,
No, it is not popular.
Yes, I will call PC, anytime I see it... all the way to the ceiling.
It's the old story regarding that if we all call it correctly, it is no longer a problem.
mick

Tim Roden · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 10, 2000, 04:23pm

I think the problem on this is in the way we see it. We NEED to referee the defense. Many officials, none who frequent this board I hope, see a collision and since the defender doesn't have both feet planted assume tht it is a block. If they had been watching the defense, they would have know that this is definitely a charge.

Tim Roden · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 13, 2000, 01:11pm

Last night I pulled out my video of last years championship game. There were two collisions that looked controversial to the naked eye. And I think Billy Packard, who doesn't know the rules, mentioned as much. The first one was in the first period. In watching it I saw the defensive player get both feet down and facing the apponent. Then I watched him back up and move "obliquely" to maintain his position and took the charge. Jim Burr did a wonderful job of calling the charge. Second half similar situation Dave Hall and one other official, I don't remember who else, blew there whistle. After looking at each other to get it right Dave signals block. On this play in watching it over and over, I never saw the defensive player establish a legal guarding position. Again Great call. Watch the defense.

BktBallRef · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 14, 2000, 12:34am

As others have said, it's a PC foul. Call it until it becomes popular!

Pirate · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 14, 2000, 11:59pm

JAdams, yes, in the case you mentioned, it should be a player control foul. However, it has been my experience that the defensive player VERY RARELY jumps straight up. The defender more times than not has extended one or both arms in an attempt to block the shot and therefore has violated the principle of verticality.

Think about it, how many times have you honestly seen the defender jump straight up with arms extended at or near a 90 degree angle to the floor?

mick · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 15, 2000, 08:21am

Quote:

Originally posted by Pirate

Think about it, how many times have you honestly seen the defender jump straight up with arms extended at or near a 90 degree angle to the floor?

I see the defender being vertical more, and more, every year.
mick

Bradley Batt · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 15, 2000, 12:12pm

Quote:

The defender more times than not has extended one or both arms in an attempt to block the shot and therefore has violated the principle of verticality.

I don't understand your comment. Trying to block the shot does not force you to violate the principle of verticality. You are still entitled to your spot on the floor - and the vertical space above it.

mick · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 15, 2000, 12:25pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bradley Batt

Quote:

The defender more times than not has extended one or both arms in an attempt to block the shot and therefore has violated the principle of verticality.

I don't understand your comment. Trying to block the shot does not force you to violate the principle of verticality. You are still entitled to your spot on the floor - and the vertical space above it.

Brad,
I think he meant extending horizontally.

mick

JRutledge · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 15, 2000, 05:09pm

What if a defender jumps backward, away from the offensive player?

Quote:

Originally posted by Pirate
JAdams, yes, in the case you mentioned, it should be a player control foul. However, it has been my experience that the defensive player VERY RARELY jumps straight up. The defender more times than not has extended one or both arms in an attempt to block the shot and therefore has violated the principle of verticality.

Think about it, how many times have you honestly seen the defender jump straight up with arms extended at or near a 90 degree angle to the floor?

Bradley Batt · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 15, 2000, 06:37pm

Quote:

I think he meant extending horizontally.

Yeah - but you still don't "give up" your right to verticality. You are still entitled to your spot and the space above it.

If there is contact on the arm, etc. from extending, that is one thing, but if the defensive player is extending his arms horizontally and the offensive player with the ball commits a foul - it is a player control foul. Period. You can't bail out the offensive player because the defensive player was trying to block the ball - he is still entitled to his spot.

I may be reading more into this than intended - just wanted to make sure

bob jenkins · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 15, 2000, 06:48pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
What if a defender jumps backward, away from the offensive player?

Then any (don't take that too literally) contact would be the responsibility of the offensive player.

JRutledge · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 15, 2000, 09:03pm

All that I am suggesting is that you use the same principle as if the players never left the floor. You can go backwards, and sideways, but you cannot go forward. If you do as a defender, it is a foul on you. It is that basic to me. Now this is judgement and if you feel that the defender caused the contact, call a foul on him/her. If not then call a PC foul.

rainmaker · #15 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 16, 2000, 03:15am

Quote:

Originally posted by Bradley Batt
Yeah - but you still don't "give up" your right to verticality. You are still entitled to your spot and the space above it.

If there is contact on the arm, etc. from extending, that is one thing, but if the defensive player is extending his arms horizontally and the offensive player with the ball commits a foul - it is a player control foul.

Whoa, hold on, wait a minute. I don't think this is right, is it? If the defense has her arms straight up, and has legal guarding position, then any contact is PC.

But you say above, "horizontally". I'm pretty sure that even if the defense has legal guarding position, she can't extend her arms horizontally toward the offense and get away with it, should any contact occur. At least in Jr Hi ball, this contact is always a push or an "illegal use of hands".

You say a 9efensive player is entitled to block the ball, and this is true but only when the block causes no contact, or when the motion to block is straight up, NO FORWARD MOTION of any body part, including hands and arms.

At least,'this is how I've been calling it...