Blocking or Player control

[mick]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I had a play about four years ago where A1 was dribbling downcourt with B1 running downcourt next to her on leftside. B2 established (NCAA Women's rules) a legal guarding position against A1 in such a manner that required A1 to juke to her left to avoid contact with her. When A1 juked to her left her shoulder made contact with B1's chest and knocked her down. Charging against A1. Why? B1 had established her legal guarding position while running downcourt alongside A1.

Sorry, Mark.
I don't quite get it... again.
mick

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...Charging against A1...

Oh boy, now you've done it. You mean PC, no?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Oh boy, now you've done it. You mean PC, no?

The foul by A1 was charging, see the NFHS and NCAA definitions of charging.

Was the foul a personal foul? Yes, it was a contact foul while the ball was live.

Was the foul a common foul? Yes, it was a personal foul that was neither intentional nor flagrant, nor committed against a player trying or tapping the ball for a field goal nor part of a double [personal] or multiple foul.

Was the foul a player control foul? Yes. A player control foul is a common foul committed by a player in control of the ball.

Nothing dificult about my call. Yes, I had one the palms of one of my hands against the back of my head and my other hand pointing in the opposite direction.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Originally posted by Dan_ref

...

Was the foul a player control foul? Yes. A player control foul is a common foul committed by a player in control of the ball.

Nothing dificult about my call. Yes, I had one the palms of one of my hands against the back of my head and my other hand pointing in the opposite direction.

Then by definition you did not have a charge, you had a PC.
(Oh brother, I really hate to go through this again.)

[mick]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Then by definition you did not have a charge, you had a PC.
(Oh brother, I really hate to go through this again.)

...When a guy has to explain his sense of humor.
Some guys just can't tell a joke. You need more practice.
Thirty-seven !
mick

[dhodges007]

Makes sense to me... thanks for the explinationn

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am sorry that I did not understand Dan's humor. But too many officials get themselves into trouble because they do not speak in the technical terms of their sport when explaining rulings.

Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponent's torso. When officiating the defense we have to rule first as to whether the contact was legal or illegal. If the contact is illegal we have to decided if it was a block or a charge. And, finally if the contact was by a player in control of the ball, the foul is a player control foul.

Too many times this year I have called player control foul on a A1 for hooking B1, and when I gave the player control foul the first words out of the A1's coach's mouth was: How can that be charging?

Or, when A1, who is control of the ball goes airborne, passes the ball of to A2 then charges into a B1, had a legal position on the floor. Team B is is in the bonus situation. I give the charging signal and then award B1 free throws, and Team A's coach complains that B does not get free throws for a "offensive" foul.

In the play I described earlier I did have a charging foul and in this case this charging foul was a player control foul.

The point I am trying to make here is that we has officials must now what is in Rule 4 and use the language of the rule book. When we use words and phrases that do not appear in the rule book to describe plays and rulings we cause more problems for use than we solve. Coaches will use any advantage that they can get against us to cause us problems. That is just the nature of the beast.

When people present plays for discussion, it is because they are really trying to start honest discussions for the benefit of everybody. But when we do not use the correct language it just mucks up the whole problem.

This is the biggest problem I have to overcome with new students in my officiating class (and too many veteran officials for that matter). New students use words and descriptions that they have heard TV and radio announcers use (and too many times veteran officials also) that do not accurately explain the ruling or what accutually happened on the court. Besides "offensive" foul for NCAA and NFHS games the use of goaltending for both goaltending and basketball interference. We are our own worst enemy. If we use the language of our sport we will be able to a much better job of educating the layman in the rules and mechanics of the sport.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...
The point I am trying to make here is that we has officials must now what is in Rule 4 and use the language of the rule book. When we use words and phrases that do not appear in the rule book to describe plays and rulings we cause more problems for use than we solve. Coaches will use any advantage that they can get against us to cause us problems. That is just the nature of the beast.

When people present plays for discussion, it is because they are really trying to start honest discussions for the benefit of everybody. But when we do not use the correct language it just mucks up the whole problem.

...If we use the language of our sport we will be able to a much better job of educating the layman in the rules and mechanics of the sport.

OK, so maybe you'll be kind enough to explain how I didn't
use the language of the rule book, or the correct language
or said anything that would confuse a rookie, vet or layman?
Of course, by saying you had a *charge* instead of a PC
you were not precise, since a charge has consequences by
rule that a PC does not. (I did say I didn't want to
go through this again so this will be the end of the
thread for me.)

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

...When a guy has to explain his sense of humor.
Some guys just can't tell a joke. You need more practice.
Thirty-seven !
mick

I gotta remember those damn smiley faces, this has gotten
me into more trouble than I care to remember!

<<<<<< Smiley face here

[dhodges007]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

So, is there a situation where charging would not be PC? What is the difference between charging and pushing?

--Denny

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by dhodges007

So, is there a situation where charging would not be PC? What is the difference between charging and pushing?

--Denny

Oh no! Here we go again!

Dan! This is all your fault!

[mick]

Originally posted by dhodges007

So, is there a situation where charging would not be PC? What is the difference between charging and pushing?

--Denny

d,
Look for this thread, below.

gregbrown8 23 292 Mar 19th, 2001

mick