Watta ya got video?

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's funny, Mr. Redundant Guy.

1. JR is right. INITIAL LGP (4-23-2a+b) only requires that both feet be touching the playing court and that the front of the guard's torso is facing the opponent. In this play, both of those requirements are fulfilled. We'll discuss the timing of when they are met in #3.

How 'bout if a player has both feet touching, but slides one foot on the ground? Is that still considered having both feet set?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

How 'bout if a player has both feet touching, but slides one foot on the ground? Is that still considered having both feet set?

What rule requires the defender to have "both feet set"? (What if he picks up one foot and holds it in the air?)

4-23-3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

4-23-4 . . . Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What rule requires the defender to have "both feet set"? (What if he picks up one foot and holds it in the air?)

[/B][/U]

Sorry. I'm so confused after mulling through this whole thread with its ensuing pissing matches about feet and heels and fileting.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

How 'bout if a player has both feet touching, but slides one foot on the ground? Is that still considered having both feet set?

Who cares? Where is the requirement of "having both feet set?"

And, JR -- I don't think jmaellis ever said "because the heel wasn't on the ground, it's a block." I take him at his word that he was just describing each frame for those who didn't freeze-frame the play or didn't watch it (put me in the latter category). He even asks at the end -- based on this description, does it change anyone's answer?

You correctly picked up that the heel doesn't matter. You might have also "criticized" his post for discussing that the ball might have left A1's hand when the contact occurred -- it's also something that doesn't matter.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

..having the top of the foot also on the floor.

You never want to have the entire top-half of your foot touching the court. I did it once and in the process dislocated my ankle, chipped a few bones, torn all the ligaments in my ankle, and kill a few never endings in the top of my foot. That was 17 years ago and I still wake up every morning attempting to pop my ankle b/c it still feels out of place.

Only time in my adult life that I cried from pain. (spent the first night lying on my sofa without Motrin or any other type of pain killer )

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. 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?

Somebody did, Old School!!!

Originally Posted by Old School

...The reason I say the red team got job because that was not a foul the lead called later. That was good defense on the red, imo.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

Well, pardon me that I don't follow your rules blindly into oblivion. God gave me a brain and the ability to reason. I am in disagreement with the Fed. on this rule, if this is in fact the rule. In my games, I will not allow a secondary defender, to run up under a player who is about to go airborne. I consider that, too big of an advantage to the defense. Logically speaking, the offensive player had an open lane to the basket. Plus 1 to the offensive. The defensive player realizes he's out of position on this play and immediately runs over to protect the rim. (Plus another 1 to the offense). It is not the offensive player fault that the back door is open. IOW, not penalizing the offensive team for a defensive letdown. Completely different story if defender is standing there from the jump. And finally, we talk about habitual motion. When is the player in the act of shooting. Once the player starts his H/M, he is now in the act of shooting. Defensive player runs underneath him, easy block call. Offensive player is allowed to return to the floor.

I will admit, I have read the NBA code, and maybe I am somewhat bias to this play from an NBA prospective. I'm going to side on the NBA on this one because it just makes better basketball since to me. I am also not refereeing by milliseconds or split-seconds. That is cutting it too close for my comfort and I can not consistently call a game by milliseconds. What I mean is that, if in order to determine if I am right or wrong, it comes down to a split-second. Half the time I'm going to be right and half the time I'm going to guess wrong, because if we're talking split-second, I'm guessing. Notice how the OP was not sure he made the right call until he went back and watched the film afterwards. If I have to go to a monitor to determine if I made the correct call, and that comes down to a split-second, then I'm totally guessing. In this stitch, he got lucky making that call.

IMO, that's a block. The defense is given to huge of an advantage here when they where in fact the ones that erred. You can't cover the entire court. So I guess I did not attend your class. However, I do not believe that my analogy is horse manure because another association agrees with me too, and I know they don't want that called an offensive foul in college men's. Restricted area, lower block to the basket, especially if the play originates from the top, which this play did.

BTW, what's a Padawan Learner??

[RushmoreRef]

I've got

Video 1 - CHARGE..that's a charge at minute 1 and it is at minute 32....Great call. The fact that's it's being argued is nonsensical to me....Foot is down, contact is in the chest....BAM, that's offense....

Video 2 - No call...I think that one was easy and the shooting foul is there....

Great work in a tough environment....

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Old School

And finally, we talk about habitual motion. When is the player in the act of shooting. Once the player starts his H/M, he is now in the act of shooting. Defensive player runs underneath him, easy block call. Offensive player is allowed to return to the floor.

If the defender is legally "there" (w/o going into the semantics of LGP) before A1 becomes airborne, which he was, then it's a charge. This isn't the NBA, and there isn't a semi circle to help you out.

O/S, I've been reading you for the last month or so and watch you get attacked on here. At times felt sorry for you, but for you to bring up the NBA for what seems to me to be the first time to justify your lack of rules knowledge in this situation, and your blatant disregard for the rules makes me wonder if the "attacks" are warranted. Now what you may perceive was bad defense could've just as well be a set defensive play to open up the lane or baseline to draw the charge. For all we know, the coach could've saw tape where he knows #34 or 23 does nothing but take it the hole and designed plays to counter that. Who knows.

I was just wondering if you ever take anything away from this discussion board that may help improve your game, or are you just hell bent and set in your ways to continuously call your games according to your logic that I read on here (one which I agree with). And I guess I'm falling into the crowd by asking you questions regarding your officiating by asking, what do you do in the off season, or even during the regular season for improvement. I'm not talking about calling rec or AAU to improve your game, I'm talking seeking some type of evaluation through camps or other evaluating methods? Or as you have put it, does your sH$& not stink and you've arrived to the pinnacle of your officiating avocation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

1) God gave me a brain and the ability to reason.

2) I am in disagreement with the Fed. on this rule, if this is in fact the rule. In my games, I will not allow a secondary defender, to run up under a player who is about to go airborne. I consider that, [I][U]too big of an advantage to the defense.

3) And finally, we talk about habitual motion. When is the player in the act of shooting. Once the player starts his H/M, he is now in the act of shooting. Defensive player runs underneath him, easy block call. Offensive player is allowed to return to the floor.

4) In this stitch, he got lucky making that call.

5) However, I do not believe that my analogy is horse manure because another association agrees with me too, and I know they don't want that called an offensive foul in college men's. Restricted area, lower block to the basket, especially if the play originates from the top, which this play did.

1)

2) You and Btaylor......

3) If you owned a basketball rule book...any basketball rule book....you would have known that "habitual motion" and an "airborne shooter" are completely different concepts. You would also have known that "habitual motion" is completely irrelevant in this or any play as to whether it was a block or a charge.

4) Yup, lucky ol' RookieDude.

5) What other association agrees with you? Please name the association.

To sum up, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Again.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Tie game...winner to state...watta ya got?

http://www.sportstricities.com/sport...-8578135c.html

I've got a "guts call" RookieDude. Bang-bang, close as heck and you sold it. Nice job.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Old School

Looks like the red team got job in this game. You telling me the kid didn't step out of bounds on that no block call. The no-block call was a pretty safe no call because the kid didn't lose control of the ball, a more experienced defensive player would have made sure he's going down with him. Then what would your call have been? The reason I say the red team got job because that was not a foul the lead called later. That was good defense on the red, imo.

So let me see if I've got the straight...you're going to say the red team got the job because you think, from a camera angle on the other side of the court that a player was out of bounds, even though the official looking down that same sideline, obviously with a better angle than you, didn't call him for being OOB?

And just how much of a player's arm does a defender have to hit for it to no longer be "good defense?" Because if you watch the video closely (heck, not even VERY closely), you'll see the shooter's arm get whacked pretty good.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Old School

I am in disagreement with the Fed. on this rule, if this is in fact the rule.

This is sad... you really do not have a rule book and you believe that enforcing your own rules while on the court is ok.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

This is sad... you really do not have a rule book and you believe that enforcing your own rules while on the court is ok.

As long as he's consistent, that's his philosophy. Better to be consistently wrong than inconsistently right.

[Raymond]

It's sad that anybody actually believes Old School is serious when he posts 80% of his comedy act.

I believe OS has a rulebook. I believe he refs games in real life. And believe he must have recently retired from his full-time job and now entertains himself by rattling everyone's cage.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I've got a "guts call" RookieDude. Bang-bang, close as heck and you sold it. Nice job.

What do you mean by 'sold it'? Maybe I saw a different clip.......