Block/Charge Call in Miami v. Virginia

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BBR:

Sure it is as simple as black and white. You just cannot have a block and charge involving the same two players. The rules do not allow it. One official is correct and the other official is incorrect.

MTD, Sr.

Yes, the rules do allow for it. Otherwise, the case play that states this is a double foul wouldn't exist. Now, you may not like it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We play by NFHS rules, not DeNucci rules. As long as we do, this is a double foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You just cannot have a block and charge involving the same two players. The rules do not allow it.
[/B]

The rules do not allow it?

Lah me, Mark, you've come up with some real dandies over the years, but this one tops them all.

NFHS Rule 4-19-7 and NFHS Case book play 4.19.7SitC

'Nuff said!

And the sad part is that you are very aware of those plainly written rules!

Lah me! [/B][/QUOTE]

Predicted MTD response:

Naismith's original rule 5 states, "No shouldering, holding, pushing, striking or tripping in any way of an opponent. The first infringement of this rule by any person shall count as a foul; the second shall disqualify him until the next goal is made or, if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game."

During the second game played under this rule a dispute arose when two players each claimed that the other had fouled. Naismith charged only one player with the foul and scribbled an amendment to rule 5 on the copy of the rules posted on the gym wall.

I discovered this amendment stored in a mayonaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's porch. I now have that jar in my attic.

The fact that the FED has chosen to produce a case in opposition to that rule only proves that they have not seen Naismith's handwritten note and does not mean that the amendment should be superceded. Had the FED intended to supercede the amendment, it would have been stated specifically when the case was written.

[OFISHE8]

Predicted MTD response:

Naismith's original rule 5 states, "No shouldering, holding, pushing, striking or tripping in any way of an opponent. The first infringement of this rule by any person shall count as a foul; the second shall disqualify him until the next goal is made or, if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game."

During the second game played under this rule a dispute arose when two players each claimed that the other had fouled. Naismith charged only one player with the foul and scribbled an amendment to rule 5 on the copy of the rules posted on the gym wall.

I discovered this amendment stored in a mayonaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's porch. I now have that jar in my attic.

The fact that the FED has chosen to produce a case in opposition to that rule only proves that they have not seen Naismith's handwritten note and does not mean that the amendment should be superceded. Had the FED intended to supercede the amendment, it would have been stated specifically when the case was written.



[/B][/QUOTE]

This has been our basketball history moment with your host, Hal Holbrook. Join us next time as we journey to the core of the first block/charge ever called. We will have a round table discussion with Bobby Knight,Ted Valentine, and Billy Packer.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Just wondering....

Under NCAA rules, if we call a double foul, would we not award the ball back to the team in control (instead of going to the arrow)?

Normally, yes, but in this case, the try was already in the air so there was no team control. Count the basket and go to the arrow.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

The rules do not allow it?

Lah me, Mark, you've come up with some real dandies over the years, but this one tops them all.

NFHS Rule 4-19-7 and NFHS Case book play 4.19.7SitC

'Nuff said!

And the sad part is that you are very aware of those plainly written rules!

Lah me! [/B]

Predicted MTD response:

Naismith's original rule 5 states, "No shouldering, holding, pushing, striking or tripping in any way of an opponent. The first infringement of this rule by any person shall count as a foul; the second shall disqualify him until the next goal is made or, if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game."

During the second game played under this rule a dispute arose when two players each claimed that the other had fouled. Naismith charged only one player with the foul and scribbled an amendment to rule 5 on the copy of the rules posted on the gym wall.

I discovered this amendment stored in a mayonaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's porch. I now have that jar in my attic.

The fact that the FED has chosen to produce a case in opposition to that rule only proves that they have not seen Naismith's handwritten note and does not mean that the amendment should be superceded. Had the FED intended to supercede the amendment, it would have been stated specifically when the case was written.



[/B][/QUOTE]Why the smiley, Bob? You're probably right!

Lah me.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Dan:

If B1 has obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1, and has maintained that position when A1 makes contact with B1 in B1 chest, you cannot have a block, you have to have a charge. If B1 does not have a legal guarding position then B1 is blocking.

You cannot have a BLARGE. Either it is a block or a charge, you cannot have both. That fact that we have casebook plays and approved rulings telling us that we should call a double foul is absolute nonsense. Just read the definition for guarding.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, is there an opening for a basketball play-by-play announcer somewhere in Ohio?

Sure sounds like you're auditioning for it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You just cannot have a block and charge involving the same two players. The rules do not allow it.
[/B]

The rules do not allow it?

Lah me, Mark, you've come up with some real dandies over the years, but this one tops them all.

NFHS Rule 4-19-7 and NFHS Case book play 4.19.7SitC

'Nuff said!

And the sad part is that you are very aware of those plainly written rules!

Lah me! [/B][/QUOTE]



I know what the Casebook says, and this is an example where the person(s) that came up with that ruling were not wearing their thinking caps. By rule, there cannot be a BLARGE. It is impossible because the defender either had a LGP or he didn't. Maybe it is time for someone to bring it to the Rules Committee's attention.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The rules do not allow it?

Lah me, Mark, you've come up with some real dandies over the years, but this one tops them all.

NFHS Rule 4-19-7 and NFHS Case book play 4.19.7SitC

'Nuff said!

And the sad part is that you are very aware of those plainly written rules!

Lah me! [/B]

I know what the Casebook says, and this is an example where the person(s) that came up with that ruling were not wearing their thinking caps. By rule, there cannot be a BLARGE. It is impossible because the defender either had a LGP or he didn't. Maybe it is time for someone to bring it to the Rules Committee's attention.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mark,

A1 is dribbling with B1 attempting to get LGP but does not get there. The only contact is A1's forearm pushing B1, by what you JUST SAID, all we could call was a block on B1 because they did not have LGP.

You can have two players committing illegal contact against each other, and two different officials both seeing half of it.

WOW, about MTD being right and the casebook being wrong. These would be the same ones you held up as correct, when they blatantly mis-applied a rule, in the officials' error/timer's error thread. I guess their word is only golden when it agrees with you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

By rule, there cannot be a BLARGE.

[/B][/QUOTE]Case book play 4.19.7SitC says that by rule there sureashell can be a BLARGE.

What color is the sky in your world, Mark?

Lah me!

[Camron Rust]

I agree with Mark, in a sense....shoot me now.

You can not have a block and a charge at the same time. Torso-to-torso contact is the same contact...it can only be one thing. The casebook play is to cover the situation when two officials disagree about which it is.

However, you can have a player control foul (not a charge) and a block, hold, hit, etc. at the same time.

A1 hooks B1 at the same time as B1 smack A1 in the face.

A1 runs into B1's extended knee as A1 stiffarms B1 in the shoulder.

Remember that double fouls occur at "approximately" the same time, not exactly the same time.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
I agree with Mark, in a sense....shoot me now.

You can not have a block and a charge at the same time. Torso-to-torso contact is the same contact...it can only be one thing. The casebook play is to cover the situation when two officials disagree about which it is.

However, you can have a player control foul (not a charge) and a block, hold, hit, etc. at the same time.

A1 hooks B1 at the same time as B1 smack A1 in the face.

A1 runs into B1's extended knee as A1 stiffarms B1 in the shoulder.

Remember that double fouls occur at "approximately" the same time, not exactly the same time.

Read 4-7-2 again:

Charging is illegal personal contact caused by PUSHING or moving into an opponent's torso.

It does not say torso to torso contact, a chicken wing clear out IS A CHARGE by definition.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Read 4-7-2 again:

Charging is illegal personal contact caused by PUSHING or moving into an opponent's torso.

It does not say torso to torso contact, a chicken wing clear out IS A CHARGE by definition.

A chicken wing clearout is illegal use of hands/arms, holding, or a push, not a charge....all still a player control foul though. A charge is pushing [with the body] into the opponents torso...otherwise, it's just a push.

If the contact is with some part of the dribbler other than his body, a block is not a relevant option. How can you block the dribblers arm? You can hold it or hit it but you can't block it.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
If the contact is with some part of the dribbler other than his body, a block is not a relevant option. How can you block the dribblers arm? You can hold it or hit it but you can't block it.

If I ever see anyone block the dribbler's soul, I've got a far different problem to deal with

Couldn't help myself, Camron. Did you mean to say "other than his torso" instead of "other than his body" in your statement? I think you could call a block if the contact was on the dribbler's legs. Am I just misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

A chicken wing clearout is illegal use of hands/arms, holding, or a push, not a charge....all still a player control foul though. A charge is pushing [with the body] into the opponents torso...otherwise, it's just a push.

If the contact is with some part of the dribbler other than his body, a block is not a relevant option. How can you block the dribblers arm? You can hold it or hit it but you can't block it.

Where does it say that this push cannot be with the arm, shoulder, top of the head, or rear end? The definition says pushing or moving into an opponents torso. You are reading into it only what you want.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Normally, yes, but in this case, the try was already in the air so there was no team control. Count the basket and go to the arrow.

Chuck, I agree 100%...but the original post said the officials waved off the basket! Does anyone know if the really did wave off the basket? Because it should have counted!