Watta ya got video?

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Oh? Then who was the jmaellis that stated the following back at 6:05pm?--- In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor, you can see the Southridge player left foot is not completely SET on the floor, it looks like his heel was still up." If you go back and review the posts, you're the only that's been talking about a foot being set. I pointed out that both feet just have to be touching the court.

2) That's exactly what I was asking you. What has whether a heel is off the floor or not got to do with anything? NFHS rule 4-23-2(a), which is the applicable rule for the block/charge being discussed simply states that to attain LGP, the guard must have both feet touching the playing court. There nothing anywhere stating that the foot must be flat on the court, and there never has been.

3) And this statement of your's is exactly why I was asking the questions. It is wrong. You don't understand the concept and you're making up your own interpretation. There is NO rule requiring that the heel has to touch the court before a defender can attain LGP. The rule says that the foot merely has to touch the court.

Don't take any of that personally either.

Good Grief!

1. First and foremost, you need to review your post(s) before you start throwing daggers. Yes, I said "set" as in, "his foot was not completely set on the floor," meaning that part of the foot was still off of the floor, I used it as a verb. You said, "What rule states that a defender has to have his heel down to have that foot set?" When you used the word "set" you used it in a different context, as if the word "set" was a state of being and part of the definition for LGP (which, BTW may also be a verb, I'm not sure). I'm sure the use of the word "set" is officialese (so to speak) but it's been used a couple of times in the thread as if the foot being "set" as if that word was part of the definition for LGP, which I'm sure we both agree it isn't.

2. 4-23-2 is the rule that I was looking out when I was trying to figure out what rule applied, so apparently I got that right. Looking at 4-23-2(a), and discarding all the filler words, the operative words that we are really left with are "guard .. both .. feet .. touching .. court." The only one of these terms that is defined in the rule book is court (court areas to be specific). You have emphasized the word "touching" in your argument, leaving me with the impression that you consider it an important term. So help me understand, why do you consider the definition of only one of the words in the rule to be important when it comes to defining this particular rule.

and finally:

3. More dagger throwing. Tell me exactly what I have "made up." I'm new, so I agree, I may not yet understand the concept .... but I didn't make up anything.

When I first registered on this board in December it became apparent to me that I would have to quickly decide who in this collective basketball officiating brain trust to pay attention to and who to ignore. You are one of the ones I pay attention to as is Nevada, BITS, some guy named Rutledge, and a few others. What I liked about you was your strict interpretation of the rules and the challenges issued to other people to show you where it says this or where it doesn't say that. Your particular challenge to me was that the rule does not say that the heel must touch the court to establish LGP, it only says that the "foot" (that specific word, and in the past you have been all about specifics) merely must touch the court. I've never disagreed with you, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what it says. All I've done is define "foot" and like it or not, the heel is part of the foot.

So, with all that said, my lovely bride has summoned me to an enchilada dinner and I'm hungry. I'll be back later.

Added after dinner:

This whole situation puts me in a real pickle. Not only do I have to ignore JRutledge but I can't describe play by play a video without making sure that Jurassic Referee agrees with the termanology I'm using. Old School do you need a Padawan Learner by chance??

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

Gentlemen, I got a block on that play. Defender too late getting there. Maybe it's because of college, but in the NBA and college, both men and women, this is a block! The only way I would call a PC is if the guy was standing there when he made his move from the top. Running over there from the other side while the offensive player is already into his final move is too late defense, a block. IMHO, restricted area or not, he got there to late.

Old School:

I can tell you did not take my officiating class, because that is a charge. Your whole premise for saying this is a block is absolute horse manure. The defender obtained(NFHS)/established(NCAA Men's/Women's and FIBA) per the rules and the offensive player committed a charging foul. It is obvious you do not understand the reasoning behind why the rule is written as it is. An offensive player without the ball has a reasonable expectation of not being guarded because he does NOT have the ball. BUT, a player in control of the ball must expect to be guarded from the moment he gains control of the ball. You may not like the rule, but you are required to enforce the rule as written, to do otherwise gives the offensive team an advantage that the rules specificially denies them.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I would have called a charge.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Perhaps you should purchase (and then read) a rulebook.

Mark:

Thats cold, but I like it.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by KingTripleJump

Charge

Great call.

ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

NATIONAL CHAMPIONS

MTD, Sr.

[IUgrad92]

I'm surprised this question hasn't come up with the first video, with this play originating from the wing, where was the trail?? I'd like to think that being T in that cirmcumstance I'd be closing down some on the pass to #4 red and especially then following the drive to the basket. Being L in that play, I still am trying to get better at having a 'patient whistle' on that drive from the wing. Rookie, were you anticipating your T to have that, and then had to come in and take it yourself? It seemed from the video that it took you a little longer that normal before I saw you come into the picture going to the table to report.

Just wondered if that came up in the postgame discussions???

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW how about a big thumbs up to Rookie Dude for not only working this contest and making some big decisions, but for sharing them with all of us, so that we can learn and get better. THANKS!!!

PS I don't know how you or someone else posted these video clips, but I would love to get a copy of the DVD of this game for training purposes for my local area officials. PM me, please.

Thanks Nevada and all the other officials that analyzed these video clips and gave your opinions.

I was happy to see some of the big dogs here agree with the call...I also agree that it was so close a block might have been called, I just wouldn't want to be on the "block" side of that particular call at that particular point in the game. (Game winning shot) Don't get me wrong...if I thought it was a block I would have called a block. But, after viewing the film...I'm glad I was on the "charge" side of that call. (Sometimes we officials just get lucky)

Nevada: Our local newspaper has many video clips, like these, of certain games in our area.
Go to tricityherald.com and sign up (free) to get these clips...you need Quciktime to view them.

I'll post some more if you guys would like.

[HawkeyeCubP]

RD - Not that my opinion matters much, but absolutely great calls. IMO, you couldn't be happier with the video clips to back you up on those. Just fantastic work, to put it simply.

jmaelis - If you can get all of your 52 bones, 66 joints, 38 muscles, and 214 ligaments to be in physical contact with the ground at the same time, I'll side with you. Until then, I believe your rationale is slightly off.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

"Foot: The end of the leg on which a person normally stands and walks. The foot is an extremely complex anatomic structure made up of 26 bones and 33 joints that must work together with 19 muscles and 107 ligaments to execute highly precise movements."

So, given that the definition of the "foot", two of which are "feet", is the sum of all the the different parts at the end of the leg, it would therefore mean that, yes, the rule does state that the heel must be down, as must the toe also be down, before LGP can be established.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I'm surprised this question hasn't come up with the first video, with this play originating from the wing, where was the trail?? I'd like to think that being T in that cirmcumstance I'd be closing down some on the pass to #4 red and especially then following the drive to the basket. Being L in that play, I still am trying to get better at having a 'patient whistle' on that drive from the wing. Rookie, were you anticipating your T to have that, and then had to come in and take it yourself? It seemed from the video that it took you a little longer that normal before I saw you come into the picture going to the table to report.

Just wondered if that came up in the postgame discussions???

My opinion of how the 3-man mechanics work on this type of play is that the Trail would have the player with the ball and any defender who picks him up out there on the wing and goes to the basket with him, but there is NO WAY that the Trail can also have the defender running in from the weak side and trying to take the charge at the block. He just isn't going to know if that defender got there in time.
However, the Lead can pick up the DEFENDER coming across the FT lane and observe his feet to set if he establishes initial LGP. If the contact occurs after that the Lead will know the right call. The key is that the defender is a secondary defender, he does not come in from the wing with the dribbler, and he sets up in the Lead's primary area. This makes it the Lead's call. We always say referee the defense.
BTW while the Center can see the player come from his primary and run across the lane, he probably isn't going to have as good of a look at the final position that the defender takes or the contact between the two players since he will be looking at the back of the defender and from a good distance away.
I disagree with anyone who says that the crash is the Trail's call. The Lead should have the first shot at it. However, if there is a travel before the crash, the Trail should have that.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Nevada: Our local newspaper has many video clips, like these, of certain games in our area.
Go to tricityherald.com and sign up (free) to get these clips...you need Quciktime to view them.

I'll post some more if you guys would like.

I have QT and can view the videos perfectly, however, in order to save them to my computer, it says that I need to purchase QT PRO. Perhaps I can find someone who has that or maybe I will go ahead and get it.

Please post more of them, they are great!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

First and foremost, you need to review your post(s) before you start throwing daggers.

When I first registered on this board in December it became apparent to me that I would have to quickly decide who in this collective basketball officiating brain trust to pay attention to and who to ignore.

Not only do I have to ignore JRutledge but I can't describe play by play a video without making sure that Jurassic Referee agrees with the termanology I'm using.

I reviewed my posts. I disagreed with your interpretation and understanding of the guarding rule. Still do.

'Nuff said from me. Simply ignore in the future.

[SMEngmann]

Great charge call, seemed more obvious to me than most on the board I've read. Even if there was a bit of a flop, and I'm not saying there was, the dribbler went right through the space of the defender who was there first and legally.

On the other call, it's tough to say. Definitely a good no call on the flop, but I might have had a foul on the trip, but I can't tell definitively what happened from the camera angle.

Finally, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the foul call at the end of the second play by the L. I thought the defender had pretty good position and verticality, and it looks to me like the offense initiates the contact with a lean in. To me the offensive contact forces the defender's hands down into a position where it looks like he doesn't have verticality. Not the greatest angle here, but what do you guys think about a no call on the foul to send the player to the line with 2 seconds left?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

... but I might have had a foul on the trip, but I can't tell definitively what happened from the camera angle.

From my earlier post in this thread #33:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then the offensive player trips on the fallen defender, which in NFHS is not a foul.

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

Finally, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the foul call at the end of the second play by the L. I thought the defender had pretty good position and verticality, and it looks to me like the offense initiates the contact with a lean in. To me the offensive contact forces the defender's hands down into a position where it looks like he doesn't have verticality.

Hey, don't I qualify?
Also from post #33:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Finally the Lead makes an excellent foul call on the shot. The defender whacked the shooter with his right arm.

If you watch it again, you will see that the defender does not stay vertical with his right arm and brings it down onto the offensive player and I don't believe that it is a result of any contact the offensive player caused. He pretty much went straight up.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I'm surprised this question hasn't come up with the first video, with this play originating from the wing, where was the trail?? I'd like to think that being T in that cirmcumstance I'd be closing down some on the pass to #4 red and especially then following the drive to the basket. Being L in that play, I still am trying to get better at having a 'patient whistle' on that drive from the wing. Rookie, were you anticipating your T to have that, and then had to come in and take it yourself? It seemed from the video that it took you a little longer that normal before I saw you come into the picture going to the table to report.

Just wondered if that came up in the postgame discussions???

You are overthinking; the ball was right in front of him and he made the correct call. Also, I don't think it was anywhere in his mind to hurry up and get in the camera shot. I think you are worrying too much about the camera and not concerning yourself with the fact that the play was right in front of the L.

[Scrapper1]

I know I'm late to the conversation, but FWIW, I think the PC was a great call. I think the no-call in the second clip is also correct. And I think the kid in the interview was a class act, especially considering the PC was his 5th foul.

Nice job, Rook, and thanks for sharing.