Watta ya got video?

[fullor30]

I think a few posts are being misunderstood. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you make the wrong call to get the game over.

I shudder at what I'm going to say, since I've had all morning to think about this. The play does deserve a call one way or the other I've decided rather than a possible pass.

Our pregame on last second shots, situations etc is it better be clear cut especially on a last second shot and foul.

From what I saw I'm still going with a block on this one.

If it ever happens to me, I hope I have the guts and confidence AND positioning to make what I can determine is the correct call and live with it.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by fullor30

I think a few posts are being misunderstood. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you make the wrong call to get the game over.

I shudder at what I'm going to say, since I've had all morning to think about this. The play does deserve a call one way or the other I've decided rather than a possible pass.

Our pregame on last second shots, situations etc is it better be clear cut especially on a last second shot and foul.

From what I saw I'm still going with a block on this one.

If it ever happens to me, I hope I have the guts and confidence AND positioning to make what I can determine is the correct call and live with it.

I can understand the block....at game-speed I may have had one too...

Curious and not trying to add gas to the fire...why do you think block...because he wasn't there, game situation, position on the court...or does it just look like a block to you...only wondering.....

EDIT - sorry just read an earlier post stating you would have a block on that play earlier, I think that explained it...

[fullor30]

From my view, he's still moving as A1 has gathered the ball and about to shoot. It's soooo close yet the defender looks to me as if he initiates the contact by sliding over. No rules to cite, no same situation I had years ago, just my judgement imho. I can't argue with anyone if they go the other way.

Now Josh Paul did trap third strike to Aj in 2005 series. That I'll argue about

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If that were true, the top of the foot would also be required to be on the floor since it is also part of the foot. Now, in all my days, I've never seen someone who can have the entire bottom of their foot in contact with the floor while also having the top of the foot also on the floor.

In fact, it might be necessary for the player to fillet his foot in order to get enough of it in contact with the floor since the bones would not be able to touch the floor with the skin in the way.

Actually, Camron, player's feet never touch the floor. Their shoes do.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by fullor30

From my view, he's still moving as A1 has gathered the ball and about to shoot.

Gathering the ball has nothing to do this block/charge call (from a rules stanpoint). All that matters is whether the defender got to the spot before the shooter was airborne.

Gathering the ball is a good indicator of when the act of shooting begins, but is irrelevant to LGP.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Given the circumstances, it would be easier to call a block or nuthin' and head for the locker room. I see what you mean though as it could have gone either way.

John Clougherty once said in relation making or not making a call when an infraction of the rules has occurred that there is no such thing as a gutsy call, either you make the call or you fail to do your job.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

John Clougherty once said in relation making or not making a call when an infraction of the rules has occurred that there is no such thing as a gutsy call, either you make the call or you fail to do your job.

MTD, Sr.

Amen!

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

John Clougherty once said in relation making or not making a call when an infraction of the rules has occurred that there is no such thing as a gutsy call, either you make the call or you fail to do your job.

MTD, Sr.

True..........

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

John Clougherty once said in relation making or not making a call when an infraction of the rules has occurred that there is no such thing as a gutsy call, either you make the call or you fail to do your job.

MTD, Sr.

Yabut....when the rules are written in such a way where you can not possibly make an accurate call, then what do you have?

When you are talking a split-second, how can you honesty say that you can watch the defenders feet get set and then in the same split-second determine if the offensive players feet has left the ground, and then make an accurate call? It's impossible, you would need two sets of eyes and two heads to pull that off, if we are talking a split-second.

Give both the players here one second more. I got a clear an easy call, either way. Defense, with another second here is clear and set b/4 the offensive player has even begun the shooting motion, offense! Give the offensive player one more second, and he is off the ground b/4 defense is set, easy block call. Take away that second and I got to guess at one or the other. If I'm watching the defense and I'm watching the defenders feet, and I verify he's set, within a split-second I can not determine accurately where the offensive players feet is because now I got a collision on my hands. Which came first, the egg or the chicken. If I'm watching the offensive player, and I'm watching the feet, there is no way I can tell you accurately within a split-second with all the other stuff that's going on, that the defenders feet was set before the collision.

Another thing you have to consider which has not been talked about much here is time and distance. You can not just jump in the front of someone that is moving with or without the ball. If, the offensive player was just dribbling the ball here and we had the defensive player jump in front of him like at the basket, and the offensive player continues to dribble, we have all pretty unanimously concluded, that in the 2nd video it is a block or a no call. Well, what if this would have happen at the basket with the game in the balance. Would you have called an offensive foul if the player would have continued to dribble instead of shoot? Notice how, both defenders in both videos did the same thing, bailed out to avoid the contact, or flop if you like that better. I believe I am the only one, with the exception of maybe one other person here who believes that the 2nd video is an offensive foul, if and only if, the call at the basket is a charge. In fact, the guy in the 2nd video at half court established LGP even better than the guy at the basket. Yet the play at the basket is a charge and the guy at half court is a block, or no-call. The FEd. needs to look at this video because you can not see two things at once, especially where they want you to make the determination here, which is ground level, the feet. You should sent it to them.

When we have a play like this happen in a game, we want basketball people to be the ones to decide. What I mean is that, I want someone who has played the game to be in the position to determine the game b4 I want someone who has just studied and mastered the rules and has no feel for the game. IOW, I want a basketball decision to determine who wins the championship and not a rulebook decision to determine who goes and who stays. Remember, the rules are there to create a balance of fair play, and we want them to be intelligently applied and enforced. Someone who understands the game and the rules will make a more informed decision, then someone who just knows the rulebook, imho. If you have ever been airborne and have someone run underneath you, you know the offensive player is more at risk of injury than if you just ran underneath him while he's dribbling. I also know that I didn't have contact to the torso to verify the defender was set before contact occurred. A basketball decision is a block, a rulebook decision is a charge. The basketball decision took more into consideration than just the one paragraph in the rulebook. The basketball decision was called more accurately, the rulebook call was guessed, although it was guessed correctly in this case, it was not an intelligently applied enforcement of the rule. It was a guess!

I don't know about you and I don't too particualry care who win or loses the game, but I definitely don't want the outcome to be determined by a guess! How's that JR, for in your opinion, having never read a rulebook?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

1)When you are talking a split-second, how can you honesty say that you can watch the defenders feet get set and then in the same split-second determine if the offensive players feet has left the ground, and then make an accurate call? It's impossible, you would need to sets of eyes and two heads to pull that off, if we are talking a split-second.
Give both the players here one second more. I got a clear an easy call, either way. Defense is clear and set b4 the offensive player has even begun the shooting motion, offense! Give the offensive player one more second, and he is off the ground b4 defense is set, easy block call. Take away that second and I got to guess at one or the other. If I'm watching the defense and I'm watching the defenders feet, and I verify he's set, within a split-second I can not determine accurately where the offensive players feet is because now I got a collision on my hands. Which came first, the egg or the chicken. If I'm watching the offensive player, and I'm watching the feet, there is no way I can tell you accurately within a split-second with all the other stuff that's going on, that the defenders feet was set before the collision.

2) Another thing you have to consider which has not been talked about much here is time and distance. You can not just jump in the front of someone that is moving with or without the ball at the last second. If, the offensive player was just dribbling the ball here and we had the defensive player jump in front of him like at the basket, and the offensive player continues to dribble, we have all pretty unanimously concluded, that in the 2nd video it is a block or a no call.


How's that JR, for in your opinion, having never read a rulebook?

How's that, Old School? Well, I'd say that you just tied for the dumbest post ever made on this forum. Again!

1) I hate to break this to you, but there is no rules requirement that the defender's feet must be set while guarding. There is a requirement needed to establish LGP, but that's not what you're talking about. I realize that you don't own a rulebook, so I'll cite the applicable rule for you:
NFHS Rule 4-23-3--After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a)The guard may have have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbounds status.
c) The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not towards the opponent when contact occurs.
d)The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plain.
e)The guard may turn or duck to to absorb the shock of imminent contact.
Does that sound like the defender has to be set, Goober? That's Officiating 101 for anybody that owns a rule book or has had any training at all.

2) You can't jump in front of someone that is moving with the ball at the last second, eh? We have unanimously concluded that it's a block, eh? Who is "unanimous", Goober? All of your buddies down at the Rec center?
Again, seeing that you don't own a rule book, let me cite the applicable rule for you:
NFHS Rule 4-23-4--Guarding an opponent WITH the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball: (a) NO time or distance is required to take a legal position."
"Time and distance" are only relevant, rules-wise, when you're guarding an opponent WITHOUT the ball. That's NFHS rule 4-23-5. Nobody has been talking about it here because it just isn't relevant in any freaking way to the play being discussed.

To sum up, Goober, if you don't own a rule book and you don't know the basics, you can look awful stoopid when you guess at something like you did above, and miss it so badly.

Now repeat after me:

I am a troll.

Again...

I am a troll.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Old School

Yabut....when the rules are written in such a way where you can not possibly make an accurate call, then what do you have?

When you are talking a split-second, how can you honesty say that you can watch the defenders feet get set and then in the same split-second determine if the offensive players feet has left the ground, and then make an accurate call? It's impossible, you would need to sets of eyes and two heads to pull that off, if we are talking a split-second.

Give both the players here one second more. I got a clear an easy call, either way. Defense, with another second here is clear and set b/4 the offensive player has even begun the shooting motion, offense! Give the offensive player one more second, and he is off the ground b/4 defense is set, easy block call. Take away that second and I got to guess at one or the other. If I'm watching the defense and I'm watching the defenders feet, and I verify he's set, within a split-second I can not determine accurately where the offensive players feet is because now I got a collision on my hands. Which came first, the egg or the chicken. If I'm watching the offensive player, and I'm watching the feet, there is no way I can tell you accurately within a split-second with all the other stuff that's going on, that the defenders feet was set before the collision.

Another thing you have to consider which has not been talked about much here is time and distance. You can not just jump in the front of someone that is moving with or without the ball. If, the offensive player was just dribbling the ball here and we had the defensive player jump in front of him like at the basket, and the offensive player continues to dribble, we have all pretty unanimously concluded, that in the 2nd video it is a block or a no call. Well, what if this would have happen at the basket with the game in the balance. Would you have called an offensive foul if the player would have continued to dribble instead of shoot? Notice how, both defenders in both videos did the same thing, bailed out to avoid the contact, or flop if you like that better. I believe I am the only one, with the exception of maybe one other person here who believes that the 2nd video is an offensive foul, if and only if, the call at the basket is a charge. In fact, the guy in the 2nd video at half court established LGP even better than the guy at the basket. Yet the play at the basket is a charge and the guy at half court is a block, or no-call. The FEd. needs to look at this video because you can not see two things at once, especially where they want you to make the determination here, which is ground level, the feet. You should sent it to them.

When we have a play like this happen in a game, we want basketball people to be the ones to decide. What I mean is that, I want someone who has played the game to be in the position to determine the game b4 I want someone who has just studied and mastered the rules and has no feel for the game. IOW, I want a basketball decision to determine who wins the championship and not a rulebook decision to determine who goes and who stays. Remember, the rules are there to create a balance of fair play, and we want them to be intelligently applied and enforced. Someone who understands the game and the rules will make a more informed decision, then someone who just knows the rulebook, imho. If you have ever been airborne and have someone run underneath you, you know the offensive player is more at risk of injury than if you just ran underneath him while he's dribbling. I also know that I didn't have contact to the torso to verify the defender was set before contact occurred. A basketball decision is a block, a rulebook decision is a charge. The basketball decision took more into consideration than just the one paragraph in the rulebook. The basketball decision was called more accurately, the rulebook call was guessed, although it was guessed correctly in this case, it was not an intelligently applied enforcement of the rule. It was a guess!

I don't know about you and I don't too particualry care who win or loses the game, but I definitely don't want the outcome to be determined by a guess! How's that JR, for in your opinion, having never read a rulebook?

Quoting the Billy Madison movie:

"[Old School], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

JR and Rich:

I would like to thank you both for your most recent posts in this thread. Old School just does not get it. He even believes that one can be a good official if he does not know every detail of the rules book. Daryl and I were talking about his posts tonight on the way to our men's league games. I do not know what we can do. Like the old saying: "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink."

Have a good weekend guys.

MTD, Sr.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) I hate to break this to you, but there is no rules requirement that the defender's feet must be set while guarding. There is a requirement needed to establish LGP, but that's not what you're talking about. I realize that you don't own a rulebook, so I'll cite the applicable rule for you:
NFHS Rule 4-23-3--After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:

Ahhh..., hold the phone. Good try gentlemen but you're going to have to do better than that. I wasn't born yesterday. We all get the propaganda but how about let's cut the crap and get to the real issue here. JR, I don't know what you're smoking but I do know you drank too much of that kool-aid, but the requirement to established LGP is exactly the point here and what we are talking about here. At what point did he establish LGP as opposed to what point the offensive player was legality in the act of shooting. Once the offenisive player foot is off the floor, he is now in the act of shooting and it is too late for the defensive player to established LGP. All this other stuff that you included is garbage, what we call on the street, bullcorn, but better stated in academics as propaganda (info designed to throw you off track to what the real issue is.)

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

e)The guard may turn or duck to to absorb the shock of imminent contact. Does that sound like the defender has to be set

Then why is the 2nd video a block or no-call?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS Rule 4-23-4--Guarding an opponent WITH the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball: (a) NO time or distance is required to take a legal position."
"Time and distance" are only relevant, rules-wise, when you're guarding an opponent WITHOUT the ball. That's NFHS rule 4-23-5. Nobody has been talking about it here because it just isn't relevant in any freaking way to the play being discussed.

Well, maybe it's not relevent but across the board using this forum as a guide, we all agree that the 2nd video is a no-call or a block. However, we are split on the first video and it's because we are divided on whether the defender obtained LGP b/4 the shooter was in the act of shooting. The only way this can be determined is to look at the offensive players foot at the precise time that the defender feet where set. This is impossible to judge in this one scenario. This is why we are split. This is why I believe we need to send this video to Fed. to hopefully get a better definition on how we should rule on this play. Having to go to the monitor afterwards to determine if we got it right, means, Houston (NFHS) we got a problem!

Another quick thing, NBA officials will nail this call and be consistent across the board, it's a block. Whether you agree with the NBA officials ruling is irrevelent here because the point is they all in agreement with what the association wants called here, and it's across the board. Not so in NFHS.

Unfortunately JR, your approach to this issue is to throw officials under the bus. It's a personal thing with you. It's all about you, but I fooled you. Just like the commerical, you thought it was all about me. But the truth is? It's about the team! It's about the game! For me, it's about getting everyone on the same page with calling this play. You really don't have what it takes to debate this issue with me any further. You should really shut up and go back to hating on new officials who come here and ask questions to try and learn. That's what I think you do the best. Trying to debate advanced topics with senior officials and turning the debate into me versus you is childish and the very reason why we can't get anything changed in the Fed. when it comes to issues like this that we disagree on.

This is a great video, a great topic to debate. I also want to thank the OP for posting it out here. Let's not ruin it.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Old School

At what point did he establish LGP as opposed to what point the offensive player was legality in the act of shooting.

The act of shooting has nothing to do with this. If he has LGP it doesn't matter if the ballhandler is shooting or picking his nose.

Originally Posted by Old School

Once the offenisive player foot is off the floor, he is now in the act of shooting .

Nope, when he starts his normal routine he is in the act of shooting. In this play the act of shooting starts about a step away from the contact. That is when he picks up his dribble to begin to shoot (any further out and it would have been a travel).

Originally Posted by Old School

Having to go to the monitor afterwards to determine if we got it right, means, Houston (NFHS) we got a problem!

The original poster didn't have to go to the monitor. He nailed it full speed in real time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

1)At what point did he establish LGP as opposed to what point the offensive player was legality in the act of shooting. Once the offenisive player foot is off the floor, he is now in the act of shooting and it is too late for the defensive player to established LGP.

2) Well, maybe it's not relevent but across the board using this forum as a guide, we all agree that the 2nd video is a no-call or a block. However, we are split on the first video and it's because we are divided on whether the defender obtained LGP b/4 the shooter was in the act of shooting.

3) Trying to debate advanced topics with senior officials and turning the debate into me versus you is childish and the very reason why we can't get anything changed in the Fed. when it comes to issues like this that we disagree on.

Lah me......you're still trying, aren't you? And you still don't know the basics.

1) Cmathews has already told you what the rule is. It's Officiating 101 again. I'd cite it for you, but you need a rule book to look up the cite. That lets you out. Again, the "act of shooting" in the plays being discussed started with the shooter's feet on the floor. You need to know rules basics before you can make a correct call.

2) No, we're not split. You're split. And you're split because you don't understand the concepts of LGP, the "act of shooting" and "time and distance".

3) If you think that's hard, try debating with non-officials who have never owned a rule book in their lives, don't have a clue when it comes to basic officiating concepts, but still insist on wasting everybody's time with stoopid posts. If you're not sure who I'm talking about, JMO, go find a mirror and look in it.

Now take a deep breath and repeat after me.....

"I am a troll."

Again.....

"I am a troll."

The only bad thing about McGriffs shutting down was that it drove you over here, JMO.