Mon Dec 20, 2004, 11:20am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by ref18
This might make for some interesting discussion but I recently found out that the education officer in my association said that we should call an intentional foul if any player tries to take a charge from an airborne shooter or an airborne player with the ball, by setting up under them while they're in the air.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ref18
The first time I heard this school of thought, I was thinking it was insane, but then I thought about it, and it sounds like it can work. Now I've just got to see it happen on the court, and make a decision based on that.
|
If the defender moves underneath after the shooter goes up, it's a block. There's no question about that, is there? I think your educatiion person is saying, in some cases, he wants it to be not a common foul but an intentional foul, right? Seems like a hard sell to me, 99.9% of the time.
Regarding the original play, seems pretty clear that it's PC if the defender didn't move. Block if defender did move. The easiest way to nail block/charge is to ref the defense.
|
Juulie:
I think that his instructor is trying to differentiate between these two player:
Play 1: A1 driving down the lane and B1 in attempt to draw a charge takes a defensive position facing A1 just after A1 becomes airborne. RULING: Blocking by B1.
Play 2: A1 driving down the lane and B1 undercuts A1. An undercut is an intentional foul at the least and could be a flagrant foul if B1's action is really out of line.
MTD, Sr.
|
...mmm-hhmmm.... and your point would be...
|
Hybrid Mode
