Agree. That's exactly how RookieDude covered it too.

2nd Video
 

Alright, keeping in mind that I am a rookie, I have a question about the popular opinion of the 2nd video. This appears to be a charge to me, but most think this is a no-call. I’m sure we all agree that LGP is initialized. If this is not a charge, when did the defender loose LPG before the contact? Please don’t yell at me, just a poor innocent rookie trying to learn.

Is it the one dribbling along the sideline..it that's the one then it looks to me like a flop (contact didn't cause the defensive player to fall over). IMO...unless there is a video that I missed.

Ahhh... So you are saying that there really wasn't any contact to speak off. If that's the case then I'm on board. However, kinda looks like a bit more contact than that from the camera angle. That ref would have had the best view.

If I'm looking at the video you are referring to......that's my opinion....

No problem. I'm concerned because there is one "IU" that IMO is known more than others. Your post puts my common sense theory in trouble. I like the way you had no comment about the T being in the camera or the camera period.

So something doesn't come into the discussion even though it is obviously part of the video? How about this? We can talk all day about theory and what we would do, but RookieDude gave us some video. Looking at the play and making a call is the next best thing to being there and making the call on the spot - better than a lot of theory and chit chat. Keeping that in mind, you failed to make the right call OR at least use the correct rational for whatever call you would make. That is why I said you are overthinking and I don't think that anymore. I know you are overthinking. :D

No, because that would not be the truth.

I really think you need to lay off the Kool-Aid. It's starting to effect brain functionality. Which came first JR the chart or the wheel?

Propaganda, it worked pretty good in WWII.

It depends. Is it a pie chart?

I was thinking more of a scatter(brain) chart.

IUGrad - where in Washington do you work games? Just wondering cause there's a number of us WA boys on here...

Old School really is cluless - why in the world would you say that NCAA Men's wants this play called a block?? What memo, POE, directive, etc. did you get that from? Can't remember? That's cause it never happened...

M&M, I'm gonna do it for you...no, wait...I can't. Then Bob would have to delete my post, and he's never had to do that before...so I don't want to make him have to delete this one just for telling Old School to stfu...

Rule books, they work pretty good in officiating.

Ain't gonna play no more in this one, JMO. You had your chance to maybe gain a little credibility just by opening up a rule book or case book and simply writing down what it said. You couldn't. Carry on trying to answer questions according to what you see and hear on TV.

Since I'm now clear that the requirement (as it relates to the feet) in order to establish LGP is that any part of the foot is touching the floor, would anybody be interested in discussing verticality, specifically does verticality have anything to do with whether this is a block or PC?

Disclaimer: The following is a question, not an opinion or an interpretation unless so stated. Any description of the event or non-event, the placement of the feet/hands/body of a player are for the sole purpose of thoroughly explaining the situation so that everything that might be important is included for the purpose of a through analysis.

In the frame of the video where the offensive player is airborne (both feet off of the floor), and the defensive player has both feet touching the floor, it's seems that the defensive player was positioned at an angle. I have been told (in a discussion that I believe occurred on this board) that verticality is essentially straight up from the floor from a natural stance.

Because of the camera placement, the offensive player occludes our view of the defensive player, but is does seem as though the defensive player's body was still moving from left to right while the offensive player was airborne, and that the defensive player's body was still catching up with his momentum when contact occurred.

Does vertically play any part in whether or not this is a block or a PC? If it does, from where does the vertical boundary begin on each side of the defensive player's body?

If the boundaries of the vertical cylinder (I don't know of that is officialese, but it sounds descriptive for what I am trying to describe) begins on the outside of each foot and go straight up, that would be a lot of space in this scenario. In this case, if a line was drawn straight up from the outside of the defensive player's left foot where the foot was in contact with the court when the offensive player went airborne, and had the contact not occurred (for instance if the offensive player was one step slower), the defensive player would have continued in motion from left to right and ultimately would have occupied that space and the contact may not have ever occurred.

In your opinion I am doing a disservice to officiating. I beg to differ. Technically, the call was correct but what you fail to understand, and this is my point, the OP guessed at it. He was not for sure until he went back and saw it on film. We are talking a split-second before everything lined up with the correct call. Do you even comprehend that in a split-second he could have been wrong? That's one of my problems here. Do you understand there is no such thing as a Superman? Then you understand there is no such thing as a perfect official. In order to get that call correct for the game winner consistently across the board of all NFHS officials is impossible. A bet you in that crew alone, you couldn't get all 3 of them at the Lead position, with the game on the line, to all make the same call.

Now you want to get mad at me because I'm for sure of my call. If I was to call player control, I would not be for sure. I think (split-second) that he got there first before offensive player left his feet. If I'm going to decide the state championship, or section championship, or any championship for that matter, I'm going with what I know for sure. I know for sure that A1 had an open look at the basket, because I saw the same thing (damn, how did he get that open) and B.) that defender came over late, caused a collision. I'm 80% block too late, I'm 20% (not sure) offensive foul. I'm going with the block, every single time. I'm 80% block, 20% charge, definitely not 50-50. BLOCK!!!!! I would have given you the best BLOCK, AND-1, GAME mechanic the world has ever seen, and then ran out to the locker room, all in one continuous motion.

Now, let's look at the 2nd video. If I got a block at the basket, that's gonna be a block at the top, or it's a better no call for me than the OP who called a PC at the basket. That's where we went inconsistent, imho. You see, the OP got lucky twice because he guessed at the 1st call and got it right, and because the player didn't lose control of the ball, he lucked out and didn't have to make a call on the 2nd video either. However, if the player would have lost control of the ball, what is your call? If the player dribble out of bounds, what is your call? If you call block, I'm showing that video to the league and I'm saying my player ducked to avoid contact and it was not a flop and he had established clearly LGP. Not to mention that a game winner was taken from me on a similar play earlier. What do you think the league is going to say? I think your actions when they are inconsistent are harder to defend. So don't come down to hard on me, I'm just keeping it real dawgs...

I got a BLOCK!!!!

When I said 'never came into discussions', I was refering to pregame discussions. My reply post was to another reply post in regards to a comment I made about pregame discussions. So, I was not commenting on discussions, in general regard to this thread.

Feel free to comment on my posts, but only do so when you have my posts in correct context.

And one last time, my initial post was just asking RD about the crews philosophy on coverage on the drive. Not sure why you in particular, are jumping off the cliff on this one.

Yes, I too am from Indiana. Had the pleasure of working both boys and girls tournaments before moving to Washington.

I too, would like to think I am common sensical, but obviously am not as refined as you are. Maybe you were from southern Indiana...... :)

Spokane area, home of both 4A Boys and Girls champions. :D I know there a number of WA guys on here. Looks like mostly west side from what I can tell. Thanks for the shout out!!

You know what amazes me???? You just admitted that the call was technically correct, but yet you still would call a block. I don't even know what to say to that.

Yep, he did....and did it well...as nearly everyone has said. :)

That's my point, the tape don't lie, but the L guessed at it! Again that's my point! You can't guess in this business. You got to be for sure of your call. In this particular stitch, there was no, no calling this play. The OP was forced to blow his whistle, he had to have something on this play. If you are the L you have to have a call here. Now, my 2nd or 3rd point, I'm losing track, but if you are not sure, always take the defense. If I'm calling offense, there's no guessing.

While that is basically correct, verticality is ALL about being able to jump into or raise your hands into the space above you once you have LGP....not about establishing LGP.

Right there, you have all you need to know about the left-right movement. If, when the shooter left the ground, the defender's torso was in the path of the shooter, the defender has position. In this case, we were looking at the back of the shooter. If you can't see the defender, he could only have been in the path of the shooter. If there is still a little left-right movement, it doesn't matter...he's already there. He doesn't have to be stone still, just in the path before shooter jumps.

Not in this case unless the player was moving forward or brought his arms down over the shooter.

Verticality has nothing to do with lateral movement.

For verticality, imagine a flat wall between the defender and shooter right at the belly/face/arms of the defender...not a cylinder. If at the time of contact, the defender is pushing that wall forward, that player is not staying within his vertical space.

EDIT: In fact, if you imagine the wall shifting such that it is alway between the defender and shooter, you can even use it for situations where the shooter is going by the defender. In that case, if the defender is pushing the wall towards the shooter at the time of contact, they've lost LGP and get a block.

Again, it about the defender getting their body into the path before the shooter jumps...even if the defender is still moving. Any additional lateral movement will either be neutral or will lessen the contact.

I just want to thank you. As you've noted, I have a mission in life. A mission from God, if you will. That mission is to totally discredit you, an excellent official and good role model for new officials. My quixotic quest is made exponentially easier by posts such as this.
Again, sir, thank you.

Did anyone hear the final horn go off? Did they end regulation with the foul?

Man, thanks for the smile! I'm not from southern Indiana. I'm Richmond.

Old School:

Please tell you have not officiated in years and years and even then you were not very good, because your post above shows that you have absolutely no clue about officiating basketball or the rules.

MTD, Sr.

IUgrad92,
It is unfortunate, but you have been taught the mechanics of this play incorrectly. You are not the only one though as this is a subtle point that many officials fail to grasp. I have even seen people at association meetings teach the coverage of this play incorrectly. So it's not your fault, but it is your duty to learn something new and correct your thinking. Possibly you could even help enlighten those in your area who are not handling the secondary defender in this manner. The understanding that you have OVERsimplified the play. It is not that simple. People cannot say that the C or T has the play all the way to the basket and that's it. The play must be divided into primary and secondary defenders for the reasons that I gave back in post #54. Please listen to Camron and others who are telling you how to best use 3-man mechanics to cover these type of plays. You will improve if you do.

Absolutely! I'm not a crotchety ol' geezer, set in my 'old school' ways ;)

Ah, the Red Devils. Done a few games out there, nice gym. I was in the Indianapolis area when officiating, originally from the Ft. Wayne area.

I thought that southern Indiana comment might get you ;)

zebraman and rockyroad...I thought maybe you guys might have seen the white team over in the Seattle area at the 3A tourney. Glad to see my fellow WA boys agree with the call...even if I am an "easterner". ;)

Nevada and Camron...good job explaining the "secondary" defender, you hit it on the head as far as our pre-game goes!

IUgrad...see Nevada's explanation. I pre-game this EVERY game, and this game was no exception. Also, kudos to you for being willing to take this info and possibly using it. I heard this same kind of information on this very forum...and I would like to think, by using it, it made me a better official.
P.S. say Hi to Rockin' Rod, who I have worked with in the past, and that Dolittle guy whom I have worked with in the Spokane area this year. (Pasco vs. Shadle Park)

JR, M&M, BITS, Bob, Rich, MTD sr.,...good explanations, thumbs up!

Dan, Mark, Snags...funny, excellent observations.

Host of others with great comments...thanks.

Ol' school...you're killing me.:D

Thank you for all that, it was helpful and appreciated. I'm glad I went back and reviewed the post and noticed the edit.

I understand the concept of the wall directly in front of the player and how a player who has established LGP who breaches the vertical plane in front of him by bring his arms down over an opposing player or who pushes the wall into an opponent has committed a foul (illegal use of the hands and blocking respectively??).

Disclaimer: The following is a question, not an opinion or an interpretation unless so stated. Any description of the event or non-event, the placement of the feet/hands/body of a player are for the sole purpose of thoroughly explaining the situation so that everything that might be important is included for the purpose of a through analysis.

What about a situation in which B1 who has established LGP and extends his arm, bent at the elbow directly in front of him at a 90 degree angle to the floor; A1, who is dribbling the ball then runs directly into the front of B1 who never moved his arm from in front of him. 4-23-1 states that a player who extends an arm into the path of an opponent is not considered to have legal position if contact occurs. Since the vertical wall in front of B1 begins right at his face/belly/arms (I'm assuming that you mean arms against the body or at the side), the contact with B1's forearm occurred beyond the wall and in the path of A1 who was headed directly for B1 (block?).

Is there any allowance given to B1 considering, that if he had not had his arm in front of him, A1 would have ran directly into his torso?

I'm asking the brain trust because this exact situation occurred right in front of me during a youth rec. game. I called a block, which met with many boos, moans and groans from the stands. My partner was an experienced official and backed me on the court, but later told me said that he would have called the PC because B1's arm didn't put A1 at a disadvantage as he was running directly into B1 and made no effort to change direction. A different experienced official told me that he would have called a blarge because even though B1 was technically wrong for having his arm out in front of him, A1 was going to run into him anyway. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it further with other refs. Anybody have any advice?

An experienced official would have intentionally called a BLARGE?
Hmmmm, not I...the way you explained it sounds like a Player Control foul to me.

Yes, he would said he would have called a double foul; block on B1 and charge on A1. His rational was that he didn't want to call only the PC because B1 should not have had his arm out in front of him like that, and he didn't want to call only the block because if B1 arm hadn't been there A1 would have ran directly into him.

Technically speaking...it would probably be a charge and illegal use of hands to make the double foul...which IS possible but not advised.

Sounds like those arms are not extended "into" the path of the opponent. That rule is really refering to a player extending their arms to the side into the opponents path when their body is not in the opponents path.

The defender IS allowed to extend their arms in front of them to cushion an imminent blow....just as they are allow to duck or turn away from the contact to lessen the impact....and still draw the charge. They must be careful to only use the arms to cushion the blow and not push/hold/grab.

While I wouldn't advise calling a double foul on your play, I do see it as a charge unless the arms created some sort of advantage for the defender that didn't otherwise exist or did more than just have them out there.

Well stated Camron...I don't see too many double foul situations when one of the two players is dribbling the ball...usually one foul happens before the other, IMO...my double fouls usually happen in the post.

I have a PC, looking at the slow motion replay, legal guarding position was established.

Anything short of an apology, I'm sorry will not be accepted. In fact, that might not work either depending on how I feel that day. There is no going back. Don't even try to trick me with your indirect tactics. We all saw right thru it. I been around too long for that BS, hence the name Old School. You gonna have to do better than that and you should quite playing because I am here to discredit you as bad as you have discredit me. On the real side, you need to get out more my man. Then you will see that people are not perfect. Likewise, on the real side, you can not live your life out of a rulebook. Basketball does not begin nor end with the NFHS Rule or Case book, and last, hating someone because you think they don't have a rulebook or a case book is whack!!!!.....must be something in the kool-aid.

You've got almost all of your standard responses in here; the only ones I can see you're missing are the comments about "throwing officials under the bus", and "don't shoot the messenger". Don't you think you need to go back and edit this post to get those in there?

Here's an idea: answer the questions posed to you directly, instead of using your canned responses that have nothing to do with the subject.

Have a nice day! :)

Geeze, I certainly don't <b>hate</b> you, JMO. I do think that you're a consummate troll though. Anybody trying to pass themselves off as a real, live honest-to-goodness basketball official without actually owning, or ever having had owned, rulebooks is what is whack. You see, when you don't know anything at all about rules, mechanics, etc but you still insist on spouting your usual gibberish, the non-officials, fanboys, etc. that are reading might actually think that what you're saying isn't....well.....<b>completely</b> stoopid. We know better than that though, don't we?:)

Now take a deep breath, RecLeague Ronny, and repeat after me:

I am a troll.

Again.....

I am a troll.

Btw, you really are enjoying the attention that you're getting on this forum, aren't you?

I admire you for making a tough call. With the advantage of slo mo replay imho it's clearly a block. Thanks for posting this. Stuff like this makes this board special.

Regarding shoulder down clip, again a block or no call imo.

Nice job.

How can this be a no call with players on the floor?

You almost got a laugh out of me, keep trying, you are getting better. Also, I see you are starting to call me names again, like troll, JMO, etc., are we getting a little sensitive? I am going to do you a favor today, you can pay me later. I am going to relieve that delusional state you are within. Sit down, relax, it's okay. Now, listen carefully, you don't discredit someone to the degree you have discredit me without there being some genuine hate behind the motive. Now, doesn't that feel better. You can now return back to hating me but just remember, the true is out.

Because NFHS rule 4-27-2 says so--<i>"contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements should not be considered <b>illegal</b>, even though the contact may be <b>severe.</b>"</i>

Score the basket and no call or a block imo. What say you?

Clearly a block? Please tell us why. Most everyone here sees this as a good player control foul call.

Agreed, and I'll try and not act like a fanboy in the future:o :o

IMO it's clearly a block when run in slo-mo. Why do think otherwise.

Clearly might be too strong a word, it's very close.

I don't agree that these were "equally favorable positions" and don't think this is an accurate interpretation of this rule.....my view of this rule is two players going after a loose ball and colliding as one example...

Although very close and I wouldn't have had a problem with a block call....this is good defense and should be rewarded....once again IMHO

I don't know if it's a 'good' player control foul. And the opinions aren't unanimous, I see what I see. I would have passed on any call on that play in that situation. Just me.

On the drive? Both players went down hard. How can you pass on the call?

Agree that you have to have something.....as I said, I would have had no problem with a block but have "something".....

Can I ask what area you are from? And I ask that with respect. I ref in the Chicago area.

Game ending basket, no need to call a foul. If you want a definitive answer, I would have called a block any other time in the game. I take it you would have called player control.

Have shown to few refs, D1 and D3 and they passed on a call, again just everyone's opinion. It's too close.

Absolutely, kudos to Rookiedude for a great discussion and posting this.

Those D1/D3 guys are gutless if they're passing on it because it's too close...game ending or not. This one is a foul one way or the other...not incidental.

And while I think it was clearly a charge when reviewed in slow motion, it wouldn't suprise me to have a lot of refs call it a block in live action.

I'm from SDakota....don't get me wrong...I totally understand the thinking of the no call...there's just too much contact in my opinion...I work DII NAIA men's and I'd have it there too.....

If you're advocating the "no call" because of the end of game scenario why not just go with the "block" since it's that close...same outcome but at least you have something for B coach even though he might not agree with you and you have something???

As I said numerous times, I have no problem with a "block".

My other argument is this...If this play happens at minute 1 of the game I've got a charge.....so in our effort to "see the same game" and have "like" calls I'd have to go with charge then as well...

I'm just impressed with the fact that in that situation he had something and something that by rule is correct...IMHO

Sitting in my cushy chair with my laptop watching Ncaa's it's easy for me to formulate a call with plenty of slo-mo and thought process. as I said, his call was fine and I could live with that. I probably would have called a block on further review as there was plenty of contact. It took a lot of guts to call a charge, I appluad him.

Me too....I can totally see myself with a block on that sit. as well....

since it could have went either way, did that make it an easy call :)

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.

This is a horrible rationale for making a game-deciding no-call. :(

Correct, that's why I said he made a gutsy call.

I don't know if "horrible" is accurate....I'm just feeling that it is a "pro-call" situation...have something....If you feel "Block" then you are still off the court cause it's over....If CHARGE, then you did your job and in this case it dictates that the game is going OT.....I want the kids to decide the game, but we're there to administrate the rules. I think a "no call" would have been wrong and a disservice to the defense...they need to feel that you made a decision, regardless if it's for or against them....

Some feel that the collison was too low....we know there is no rule in federation and he wasn't under the basket, he was on or barely inside the block....those that feel he slid under or his upper body was still moving, I can live with that...call a "block" count the basket and get out....

I feel like I've went around in circles with this, but I guess the whole post has done so...

I've seen the video full speed and slow motion for four days straight. I would have called a (CHARGE) in both full speed and slow motion.. The official clearly refereed the defense in the scenerio.

Someone else, mentioned where was the Trail in this situation? It is definitive that the LEAD had the call all the way. Because, the primary defender was beaten and the secondary defender established LGP so it was the Lead call to make.

MHO, those who stated it could have been a block or no call you really ASK yourself why am I doing this (officiating). It is clear it is not for the LOVE OF THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gotcha. And I agree. :)

Are you saying that if a guy calls a BLOCK then he's a bad official...C'mon, it's bang-bang and we all know that a BLOCK could have been sold just as well as a CHARGE in that sit....For the record, I agree with the call and hope I would have had the same thing but I wouldn't have hung the guy out to dry if he would have called a BLOCKING foul when it happened....Meaning I can see an argument for a blocking foul when looking at it in game-speed....

I don't think he's saying an official that calls a block here is a bad officials....it was pretty close.

What I think he's saying is that an official that calls a block becasue it's the easy call (despite knowing it was a charge) is a bad official.

There are those that say they want the kids to decide the game and base a no-call or block on that premise. In doing so, that official has actually decided the game by allowing a shot that should have been waived off due to the charge....giving the shooting team a win.

I'm in 100% agreement....plus I couldn't think that fast anyway...it's a total judgement in that case.

So let me say this.....It's bang-bang and you're not 100% sure BLOCK vs. CHARGE....I go with CHARGE...that's what we pregame and that's what I've got....That being said, I don't ever remember a time thinking, I'm not sure so I'm going with charge...I always have something that makes me sway one way or the other....not always right I'm sure but have never had to go through that thought process...Comments?

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...

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:)

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

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.

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!<i></i>

True..........

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?

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 <b>set</b> 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:
<b>NFHS Rule 4-23-3</b>--<i>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.</i>
Does that sound like the defender has to be <b>set</b>, 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 <b>with</b> 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:
<b>NFHS Rule 4-23-4</b>--<i>Guarding an opponent <b>WITH</b> the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball: (a) <b>NO</b> time or distance is required to take a legal position."</i>
"Time and distance" are <b>only</b> relevant, rules-wise, when you're guarding an opponent <b>WITHOUT</b> 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.

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."

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.
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).

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

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, <b>we're</b> not split. <b>You're</b> 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.

You are completely wrong on this. Go back and read the book.

Yes, but he wasn't sure, which is my point. The video supported his call, however, how can you make a decision that's going to decide the game and you not be sure? That's my point!

Some of you have also gone with the no-call analogy on this play at the basket to decide the game. Though I do not agree with that position, I can certainly respect how you got there. The timing was such that you couldn't pick a culprit. However, I believe I have found a definitive answer to this position and my position.

Rule:4-27-5. If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from an a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

To me, the defender was late getting there, regardless of the fact he got his feet set a split second b/4 the contact, so he is the player in the most unfavorable position, therefore, he is responsible for the contact. You certainly cannot say the offensive player is in the unfavorable position. We're also certainly bordering on incidental contact here, a no-call. In fact, I was real close to a no-call myself but I'm not letting that much of a collision go without coming up with something. My decision was against the player in the most unfavorable position, the defense.

can I borrow yours?? I seemed to have misplaced mine. Which would indicate that I did originally have one. Can you say that? Oh wait I am just yanking your chain, mine is up in my pickup, but I don't have to go read it. I know when the shooting motion starts, I also know that it isn't pertinent to this situation. If however the call had been a block it would be pertinent, because then the player in the act of shooting would get credit for the basket, we wouldn't shoot the free throw because the game had been decided :)... NOW shall we take a poll and and see if I am completely wrong. LOL..
Yeah he was sure. He was sure enough to let the players send the game to OT...and the video supported his call as you have said, but above you said it was a block, you don't have a point except for the one on top of your pointy little head LOL...how is that saturday night gig working for you now?

if he is there before the ball handler he is there before the ball handler, if he is late he is late, you cannot say he was late but got there before the ball handler.....wow...you might actually be the inspiration for the aflak duck and all the confused looks LOL....:D

I'm not sure where Old School keeps getting this idea that RookieDude was "unsure" of his call...he posted the video and asked opinions. He's a good official and wanted to learn and help others learn - that doesn't mean he was unsure of his call...

Secondly, the whole concept of unfavorable position does NOT apply to a player who has established lgp...so using it as an argument in this scenario is really weak...but then, so are most of this clown's arguments.

I got mine here so I will help you.

Rule 4-23-4.b: ...Guarding an opponent with the ball. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal guarding position before the opponent (feet) left the floor.

This comes down to when the offensive player feet left the floor and when the defenders feet was set. This is the part we where all unsure about. It comes down to you having to watch both of their feet at the exact same time to accurately determine because it was so close.

Now that you are up to speed, would you please STFU and stay out of grown folks conversation. Your innuendo is not helping. Remember, this is not about me, this is not about OS.

Good, as long as you've got your book out, where's the part about the defender's feet needing to be set?

yep
 

Yep you are right they have to establish position before the ball handler leaves the floor. What does this have to do with shooting, or when the act of shooting started? I will type really slowly for you here, cause I am guessing you might not be able to read too fast.

I said LGP has nothing to do with whether the player is shooting or picking their nose. If they have LGP on the ballhandler, they have LGP on the ballhandler period.

Now shall we go on to discuss who can be in the adult conversations and such LOL...you actually make me laugh out loud here. One of my coworkers just asked me what I was laughing about....

I disagree.....

Rule 4-23-2a.

Rule:4-27-5. If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from an a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

Did the defender approach from behind, hmmmmmmmm nope not as I recall....Did he have a reasonable chance to play the ball, yeah I am saying he did, since it went right by his forehead....However being well coached he knew better than to reach for the ball and maybe committ a foul. He stood his ground (granted he didn't have to stand it long LOL :D) and took a charge. A charge which was the right call, at the right time, supported by video, and all pertinent rules.....the one about him approaching from behind not withstanding...Thank goodnes OS wasn't officiating the game, he may have come out with an intentional foul for the block because the player with the ball started dribbling at the top of the key, and therefore has the right to a clear path to the basket, and thus the defender was fouling to negate an obviously advantageous position.....at least that is how the OSNBA (OS never been attagame) wants it called LOL

So it was a bang-bang play and a call was made...RookieDude made the call correctly BY THE BOOK, and there is no plausible argument that Old School has yet made or can make that will negate the fact that RD got the call right...but since Old Sh!thead decided to start the ball rolling here, we all know who in this post needs to STFU until he figures out what the hell he is talking about...

I thought he was more than confident in his call, and the fact that he posted the video which he knew would be subject to high scrutiny here speaks volumes about him and his character. Again, from the video, I would have called a block which doesn't mean squat. He was there , in position and comfortable in his call. I wish I could do a few games with a guy like that.

I think that this may be the best thread I've ever read here. It scores a perfect 10 both on its educational value and its entertainment value.

From the I-just-can't-resist-department, how about this video:

Anyone have PC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqPBJ_6y_5A

I love the tournament.

Again, as long you have your book there, can you quote me a rule that hasn't already been posted previously by other people on this thread? Iow, please show us you really do have a book, and that this statement is not an outright lie.

For example, you mentioned earlier in this thread about "habitual motion". Can you cite the rule that mentions habitual motion?

My position CMatthews, and I'm not saying I'm correct on this, but my position is that the rule was not enforced intelligently. The player being well coached is a good argument. The only problem is, he got there too late, imo, to establish LGP without causing contact. When you take everything into consideration, this is what you have to look at. If you just approach it from the standpoint of the book and this one rule which is what I hear you saying. You got a rulebook call.

The defensive player would have done better in my book, had he not went for the CHARGE and just went to defend the basket. Taking everything into consideration, this was the best choice left on the table, depend the basket, try to block the shot. The offensive player had too much momentum going to try and cutoff with the charge. Enter R4-27-5. When you look at the collision in this play, you can see it's not your patient contact to the torso charge. It's more of a train wreck where we got to people converging on the same point at the same time. At best, you should be thinking incidental contact, enter R4-27-5.

The intelligent enforcement of the rule should have been a block. Calling a charge on this play, unfairly punishes good offensive basketball.

I would have game management check the fan blowers - I'm not sure we want air moving so violently that it's knocking down players. :D

Great no call.

OS, you say the defender broke rule 4-27-5 because he was "late." But he wasn't "late" by rule. If his feet were touching and he was facing the opponent prior to the shooter's last moment touching the floor, then he wasn't late.
By what standard do you say he was late?

WOW we agree on something, I am not saying you are correct either LOL


Wow, you are right we wouldn't want one of those. Anything but a call that agrees with the rulebook......

Yes I can see that now, the defender made a terrible choice, one that allowed them to win the game in the 2nd OT..I bet he had to run extra laps for this....bad bad bad, you know they aren't bad kids they just make bad choices LOL :P

Yes I can see he had no chance what so ever to get there in time to have an official call a Charge...

Rule 4-11-1. 04/05 book, my 06/07 book is packed away in my bag that I carry with me to all my games. This is not about me, it's not about OS, and it's certainly not about whether I have a rulebook or not.

Good, I'm impressed you know the rule number. Can you tell the wording in the rule that corresponds with your statement?:

What do you mean by "defend the basket"? Trying to block the shot? :confused:

In FIBA rules the word "momentum" is used only once, when it is said that if an airborne player lands and his/her momentum causes him/her to contact an opponent who has LGP beyond the landing place, then the formerly airborne player is responsible for the contact.

In NCAA rules the word appears more often. Let's pick where also contacts are involved. Go to page 77, A.R. 72: again, the offensive player whose momentum causes the contact is responsible for it.

I don't have NFHS rules, but I strongly believe that they don't contain a line to support your thesis.

There is no request for a patent torso contact in the rules. The offensive player contacted the torso of a defensive player who had LGP. It is true that it was a contact between two players converging to the same place, but you seem to forget that one of them had the ball!
A charge on this play is a tough call, I applaud RookieDude for calling it. It recognizes good defense. I was always taught that the ball handler must expect to be guarded until the very last moment, when on the floor. He had one foot on the floor when the opponent obtained LGP: charge. His momentum has nothing to do with the choice of the call: he was required by the rules to avoid the contact.

A block could have been a reasonable call, after all it was a question of centimeters (sorry, inches :)) and sometimes officials make mistakes. But the correct call was a charge and the slow-motion supports this. A no-call is not to be considered in any case, in this play.

If by "intelligent" you mean "hey, it's a tough call, let's go with a foul on the defense", then you are not a real basketball official.