Watta ya got video?
 

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

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

block or no call.

me personally no call here.

Block and shooting one

Watch the slo-mo and you will see that defender is set before A1 is airborne.

Gutsy call. It could go either way, but I see nothing to indicate that the call was wrong.

Man, that is a close one, Dudey. I wish that I could freeze-frame that one. It looks like the defender just got his outside foot down while the shooter still had a foot on the court. The ball was still in the shooter's hand when the contact occurred too. You can't no-call it because of that imo.

Soooooo....that makes it a charge, and a good call. Tough call.

Your game? Your call?

IMO, there is too much contact to no call. I agree that the right call was made. Great defensive help.

I had player control on the live action, and the slo-mo replay confirmed it. A train wreck like that definitely requires a call. That's why we get the big bucks.

definate charge

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.

JR...you are so right! (on all counts) It was a close one...and it was my game and my call.

You can freeze-frame it if you put the pointer on the moving "slide-ball"...after viewing it I felt a little better. I see the defender having both feet set a fraction of a second before the dribbler becomes an airborne shooter.

I couldn't see no-calling it either...both players on the ground, something had to be called, IMO. (Add insult to injury...5th foul on dribbler...he doesn't get to even play in the OT) Also, isn't it Fed philosophy if an official has a close "block/charge" call and isnt' sure...go with the charge?

Sidenote: I know both player's father's very well. I just talked to the dribbler's father today, (we have worked for the same company for years), he is a class act...smiling, he said it was a tough call and that's the way it goes. He said he hasn't even looked at the video.
The defender's father is a part time official in our association...I haven't heard from him...yet. (Of course the white team just got back from state...taking 6th place...losing to the team that knocked out the orange team, in regionals, the very next night.)

Here is the dribbler's interview after the game...a three sport superstar player and class act, IMO. (The player that is shouted to, just going up the stairs, is Jason Munns...going to BYU on a football scolarship.) (He played for the white team)
http://www.sportstricities.com/sport...-8574709c.html

The calling official sold me, but I could see it going either way. I guess this would be an excellent example of refereeing the defense? :D

I've got a charge. No way you no-call that IMO

Rule reference(s)?

How big is the restricted area?

In real time, I got a block. It's close, but I got the block. game over.

It is possible to freeze this video. Just pause it and then use the left and right arrow keys to move through the video frame by frame.

You can tell which foot belongs to who because the two players are wearing different styles of shoes; the Southridge player has broad blue stripe on his shoes.

In the frame just before the Kennewick player has both feet off the floor you can see that the Southridge player's left foot is not yet completely set on the floor, it looks to me like his heel is still up. It is also clear that the Kennewick player has started his shooting motion. In the next frame the Kennewick player has both feet off of the floor and it appears the the Southridge player's left food is now flat on the floor, but his left leg is at an angle and it appears that he is not vertical (I don't know if that matters or not, just throwing it in the mix). The next frame shows the Kennewick player in the air with the ball over his head, you can tell that the Southridge player's torso is still moving laterally toward the baseline as you now begin to see his left shoulder area. In the next frame the Kennewick player is still moving up (and presumably forward), you see a little more of the Southridge player's torso indicating that he is still moving laterally toward the baseline. Contact may have occurred in this frame, it's not clear. The next frame shows the ball has just left the Kennewick player's right hand and it's clear that contact has occurred.

Assuming that I got all that correct, does it change anyone's opinion?

PC, great call.

Ol' Rookie Dude had some tough calls this night...or tough no calls...and for you "no call" advocates...how do ya like this one?

Same game...2nd OT...15.2 seconds left...tie game...White team player dribbler A1 (was the set defender on the previous "charge" video)does he get shoulder past moving orange defender?...I'm Trail.

http://www.sportstricities.com/sport...-8574711c.html

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.

Ben from Virginia will be along shortly to agree with you too. He also thinks that it's <b>always</b> a block if the contact is on a secondary defender in the restricted area.

Sureasheck was a close one. I went back and freeze-framed it too. Saw it exactly the same way that you described above, which was also my first impression. Great call!

When they're that close, it's pretty hard to fault an official for going the other way either in real time. Not when you have to freeze-frame a replay to confirm a call.

Again, great call in a tough situation imo. Big ups, partner.

Why don't you just tell him to go f@ck himself and be done with it?

:rolleyes:

What rule states that a defender has to have his <b>heel</b> down to have that foot set?:confused:

I thought the criteria used to ascertain LGP in this particular case was for the defender to have <b>both</b> feet <b>touching</b> the playing court in the shooter's path before the shooter became airborne. There has <b>never</b> been a requirement to have the complete foot flat on the floor as far as I know. What am I missing?

I'm not suggesting that you are missing anything. Just a play by play where I am trying to describe what I see and take everything that might be important into consideration.

Although, with that said, it seems to me based on the camera angle, that the defensive player was still moving laterally when the offensive player went airborne .. but I don't know if that makes a difference or not .. just trying to learn something here.

That's not what I asked though.

Is there a rule that says a defender's foot <b>isn't</b> set if the heel of that foot is still up in the air? That's what your post is intimating, if I'm reading it correctly. Again, under my understanding of the rule, the foot only has to touch the floor to be set. There is no requirement that I've ever heard of that states that the defender's heel must be down. If there is, please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking.

I'm willing to bet there isn't, without checking too hard. Not just because I haven't seen it, either. Also because it's bad defense to have your heel on the floor; nothing says a player must be playing bad defense to draw a charge.

:rolleyes: This is a charge. OS, who writes your material for you? It is a comedy act isn't it?

Great no call! Defense starts falling from minimal contact. Offensive player keeps control of the ball.

I know I shouldn't reply. That being said, every call on both videos have been correct, IMO! The shooting foul in the 2nd OT looks like a great call. The defensive player has his arms straight up and then brings one down on the shooter's arm. The angle is not great but it very much looks like a foul.

A more "experienced defensive" player would have also drawn a block call from me if the offensive player goes down! The "better defensive" player beats his man to the sideline and cuts off his route.

By the way, great job on posting these videos RookieDude! We need more of these on the forum to learn from! It would be helpful to have a place specifically for videos!

Yes you did, you asked, "What am I missing?" To which I replied, "I'm not suggesting that you are missing anything."

Believe it or not, not everyone who posts on this board is challenging another person's interpretation of a rule.

You mentioned in your first post that, "I wish that I could freeze-frame that one." Since you didn't know how to do it, I did it, and described what I saw as throughly as possible, frame by frame, taking into consideration everything that I thought might or might not be important. I never said anything about the heel needing to be down before the foot is set.

But, since you mentioned it, I haven't seen anything in the rules that talk about the foot needing to be "set" before LGP is established. What does that mean? How does the foot become "set." (I have been looking at 4:23:1-5).

However, with all that said, since you now have me thinking about it and since I know you are a stickler for strict interpretation of the rules, based upon what the rule actually says, not what it infers, let me offer this for discussion. The rule states that the player must have both "feet" on the floor in order to establish legal guarding position. Feet being the plural of "foot." I looked in the rulebook for a definition of feet and foot .. if it's there, I didn't see it. I went to a medical dictionary and copied the following definition of "foot":

"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.

I watched it real time and was satisfied it was a charge.

Great call. Great no call on the second video.

I have player control....and I'm probably selling the sh.it out of it too:D

RD,
I believe that both of your calls were correct.

On the first play the defender gets to the spot on the floor with both feet down before the offensive player goes airborne. = Charge.

For the second play, the defender does nothing wrong. He has LGP and moves laterally to maintain it. However, I can't see anything that the offensive player does that is illegal either. There is next to no contact. There is no push off with the left arm or lowering of the shoulder. I believe that the defender just went down trying to draw a charge. He correctly didn't get it. Then the offensive player trips on the fallen defender, which in NFHS is not a foul. He does a fantastic job of keeping his dribble alive as he falls to the floor and then gets back up. There is no travel here. The player is dribbling the entire time.
Finally the Lead makes an excellent foul call on the shot. The defender whacked the shooter with his right arm.

Hmm...good idea.

I'm glad you thought of it.

1) Oh? Then who was the jmaellis that stated the following back at 6:05pm?--- <i>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 <b>SET</b> on the floor, it looks like his heel was still up."</i> If you go back and review the posts, you're the only that's been talking about a foot being <b>set</b>. I pointed out that both feet just have to be <b>touching</b> 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 <b>touching</b> 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 <b>NO</b> rule requiring that the heel has to touch the court before a defender can attain LGP. The rule says that the <b>foot</b> merely has to <b>touch</b> the court.

Don't take any of that personally either.

For the first one, I couldn't fault an official for going either way on the call, but the replay confirms that his call was in fact correct.

For the second, great no call. There was hardly any contact, and the defender tried to "take the charge," and the official didn't give it to him.

Hey, Nevada - this post is almost worthy of your warped, legal mind. :D

jmaellis - you're trying to read too much into it. The NFHS rules don't specify by definition that the word "foot" implies the "whole foot". Are you thinking that a player will never establish LGP if thay play on the balls of their feet the entire game? Should we consider a pivot foot is never established if the whole foot is never placed on the floor? (Hmmm...that would eliminate that whole "hopping on the non-pivot foot" non-travel argument...)

Anyway, my initial reaction on the first look at the play was a charge, and that's all the OP had - one look. The more I watch, the more I wonder if the defender was already starting to go down, and how much contact actually occured on the torso of the defender. But that's the advantage to having many looks at a replay.

Charge

Great call.

How long does it take for you to understand that jmaellis was trying to be helpful and learn? Nothing was being challenged, helpful observations were being made and some questions were being asked. :confused:

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

Rookie - nice job. Gotta love those district games. Packed gym, loud, bang-bang plays...whoeee!! Thanks for posting these clips, it's nice to see some bball from the east side again!

How long does it take you to figure out, Bucky, that I was trying to help him learn? You know, learn how the LGP rules <b>really</b> work?

It'll probably take you a long time, seeing that you're dumb as a post when it comes to officiating, and always have been.

Don't take that personally either. It's a fact.

That's funny, Mr. Redundant Guy. :)

Now since, jmaellis, is a newer official and really is trying to learn about this stuff, I for one am going to help him as nicely as I can.

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.

2. Since the game of basketball is often played by being on the balls of one's feet, then it is logical to conclude that no rule would require a player to stand flat-footed.

3. 4-23-5b requires the guard to have obtained "legal position" before the opponent left the floor, if the opponent is airborne. Notice that there is no requirement that the defender must be stationary or not moving. By looking at the video, the defender got both feet touching the floor, thus taking his spot on the court, PRIOR to the offensive player's second foot coming off the floor, thus making him airborne.

Once the defender obtains his spot on the floor he cannot move to a new spot AFTER the offensive player is airborne, but he can move his body, arms, and even jump vertically.

10.6.1 SITUATION A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-7)

Hit the snooze button... I should have realized your true intent was to be helpful.
Bucky? :confused:

BTW how about a big thumbs up http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/2thumbs.gif 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.

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??

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:

Thats cold, but I like it.

MTD, Sr.

ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

NATIONAL CHAMPIONS :D

MTD, Sr.

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???

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.

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. ;)

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. :confused:

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. :eek:

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.

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! :cool:

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.

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?

From my earlier post in this thread #33:

Hey, don't I qualify? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/wave.gif
Also from post #33:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :eek: )

Somebody did, Old School!!! :eek:

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??

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....

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?

1) :D

2) You and Btaylor......:rolleyes:

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 <b>irrelevant</b> in this or <b>any</b> play as to whether it was a block or a charge.

4) Yup, lucky ol' RookieDude.

5) <b>What</b> other association agrees with you? Please name the association.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

And I'm overthinking??? But I digress........

I too, officiate in Washington state, and the reason I made the comments I did was because that is how our association handles 'drives to the basket', from either wing. It was a point of emphasis in every pre-game of every varsity contest I did this year. L to have a patient whistle on a crash from a drive from either wing, C or T having first crack due to play originating from their primary. I never said that L should not have a whistle on such a play. I was just asking RD if their crew was applying that same philosophy or not.

Thanks for YOUR concern though, tomegun. ;)

I got....

A player control foul in the first video.

A no call in the second.

And no comment on Old School's posts................

Good job, Rookie.

JR, I want you to think about this real good before you respond again. If I didn't have a rulebook, how would I know about the term Habitual Motion? Gotcha!!!! Ahhh..., one more thing, H/M is irrelevent to any play? Damn man, you must have drunk more of that Kool-Aid than I originally thought.

Seriously, I got another philosophy on this call for all of you. At a recent camp, I was told that as the Lead, you don't watch the feet. As the Lead, you have from the waste up. Now, if you are the Lead making this call, and you are basing your decision on the fact that the defender got his feet down and set before the offensive players feet left the floor, you are watching the wrong thing. Plus, in order to make that determination at that precise time at real time speed is at best a guess. Judging that you are making that decision from the players feet. Now if you are watching the play from the waste up and judging this, you will see that the offensive player has a open path to the bucket, at the last minute a defender moves in. From real time speed, you can't undercut the player once he's started his shooting motion. So I'm saying that if the call comes from the Lead who watching from the waste up, the only possible call you can have is a defensive block, imho. Now we go back and review the film, the film shows the defender did get there in time and it was in fact PC. In real time, you can't make that call from the Lead and the reason is you don't have enough information, you are guessing at PC.

Let's breifly talk a minute about the contact to the torso. There was no contact to the torso. The player got there too late. The contact on the play was from the undercut and the offensive player fell down from this. If I'm watching waste up, there was no contact to the chest. That's what I need to see to rule PC from the L. Easy call, block, 2 shots, game over.

The National Basketball Association you moron!!! To sum up, you need to really lay off that kool-aid.

Pre-Game & Consistency
 

(In referrence to the 1st video)
If they pre-gamed that they were going behind their head all night on anything close - Then they got it right.
If they pre-gamed to the hips all night then they got it wrong.
If they went to the head on everything else that night, they got it right.
If they went to the hips all night, they got it wrong.
Personally - I feel that the defender had not established(both feet while facing) and therefore the bucket is good and we are shooting one. However, I reserve the right to reference earlier material posted in this response!! :p

Old School will be performing two shows nightly all week... at 7 PM and 10 PM. Don't forget to tip your server. Thanks for coming folks.... rim shot......

Old School:

What are you advocating is not "old school." What I am telling you is how the rules committees have wanted it called for at least 50 years, and I have been a boys'/girls' H.S. official for 36 years, women's college for 33 years, and men's college and FIBA for 14 years. What you are advocating is wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the rules and how and why they are written. I feel sorry for you.

MTD, Sr.

No, he's saying habitual motion doesn't matter when it comes to a block/charge call. it only matters when deciding whether or not to count a shot when there's a foul by the defense. If you actually read the book instead of looking for terms to throw around, you'd know that. But, then again, reading comprehension can be difficult for some people.All this to say, "I don't care about the rule, I think it should be a block." Which would be relevant if the game in question were played under NBA rules; which it wasn't. Note, the NBA actually has a rule in place for this; but unless you're playing with a 24 second shot clock and calling defensive 3-seconds (among other differences), you can't base this call on where the player was standing.

Note the red in the above quote is a paraphrase.

Don't feel sorry for me, it's just my opinion. I totally understand the way NFHS wants this call. I just disagree with this particular play being a charge and I know I'm not the only referee that feels this way. I'm just the only referee that's got enough balls to stand my ground on this forum.

In reference to the first play posted (end of regulation) had to look at it in slo-mo myself, but I think the charge is right on.

If I'm standing there in real time, though - oy - not sure what I'd call (although L would have had a bit better view than that camera).

Real hard to say from the opposite side of the court. My instinct is that I'd call this a PC foul, too, but you had the best view in the gym as to where the contact (if any) occurred!

PS - your mechanics are wonderfully sharp. I'm impressed.

Oy... I'd really hate to be a player who is supposed to be playing NFHS but gets the NBA rules instead. I'd hate to see you call a 1 shot Technical Foul just becaue the technical (although deserved) wasn't enough to warrant 2 shots (that penalty is OBVIOUSLY too harsh). :eek:

You can't pick and choose the rules you want - when you are reffing NFHS you use the NFHS rules.

Out of curiousity, if you were to ref a FIBA game would you not call the over and back violation on a throw in from the front court just because you don't like it?!?

The problem was, and still is, that I didn't have an interpretation or an understanding when I originally posted; I had a question. So for your benefit, so you don't flip out in the future I will be extra careful to include some sort of statement that my post is either a question or an opinion, so you won't be confused.

I'm here to learn, not ignore, so in the future I will simply filter the nonsense.(BTW the ignore comment regarding JRutledge is a joke relating to a different thread)

And what does your pregame include regarding a drive to the basket when there's a crash with a secondary defender? IMO, Nevada got it correct in post #54.

first play: d has lgp (doesn't matter if both feet are on the floor according to ncaa rules) great call.

second play: good no call, player flopped

nice job under tremendous pressure

Great video!

I know I'm probably behind most fo the discussion as I decided to post without reading the response of everyone else, and the thread is already 80+ posts.

I have a player control foul. Seocnd foot was barely down before it's time restriction for a PC.

Not sure if this was posted:

2nd OT dying seconds drive by visitors

Anyone have a PC here as well?

1) Great. Now explain to us exactly what the "habitual motion" rule says and means. Then...cite it from the NFHS rule book <i>verbatim</i>. That means word-for-word. You'll find it on p.39. What does case book play 6.7COMMENT say about it? That's on p.50 of the case book. Please cite that word-for-word also. If you don't cite both......GOTCHA!!!!

2) Seriously, again that ties for the dumbest post ever made on this forum.If you had ever really gone to a basketball officials camp, you might actually have found out that the philosophy you're trying to describe applies to covering a stationary <b>shooter</b> under the board from the Lead, not a <b>defender</b>. You must have overheard a conversation between real officials, but failed to comprehend what they were saying. What you're basically saying is <b>"DON"T referee the defense"</b>. Somehow, that doesn't really surprise me.

3) Moron? <b>You're</b> trying to use an NBA rule to call a high school play, and <b>I'm</b> a moron?:D

As soon as Bob gives me the ok...

Old School:

Fine you disagree with the NFHS, NCAA and FIBA. I do not care. If you are going to call it the way you want to call it and not the correct way, then get the heck out of basketball officiating. You are doing a disservice to the game if you refuse the apply the rules correctly.

MTD, Sr.

Old School:

If you are not officiating the defense, you are most definitely not watching the correct thing.

MTD, Sr.

I agree...there is no way this "crash" should be called by the T...The T should have primary defender to the hole and there was none...Secondary defender stepping in should be the L and he got it right....I see no problem here with the L being able to determine if he has both feet down or not (which he did) especially if he is working off the end line a bit. As far as the contact not being with the torso....it may have not been with the torso but definitely to the torso....he was there.

I believe the "watching the feet" reference is referring to the fact that the out official can help with watching the feet of an offensive player when in the paint while the lead watches waist up, not watching the defensive player's feet.

As said earlier....great call, they don't get any closer than that.

To be honest, the whole complexity of a secondary, or even a third defender, etc. never came in the discussions. Plain and simple, C or T has the drive to the bucket and first crack at any collision/contact. The C or T absolutely may decide that they have nothing, but if the L sees something that warrants a whistle, then by all means, come in and get it. That's the luxury of the 3 person.

Again, I am not questioning RD making this call.

Now why would I even attempt to explain anything to you. You already know it all, and I also know that you don't like it when I use your own tactics on you. Bully's don't like to be bully back. Here's the deal, I know what it means and I'm not trying to prove anything to anybody. I just state my opinion and my position and that's that. It's not changing JR. Now if you want to come behind that with your throw the ref under the bus tactic's, that's all on you.

Now, one thing I noticed that has not been bought up yet. It is my opinion that only an official would recognize this. And since JR is questioning my ability as an official. I think I will bring it up now. The red team got screwed. If you're going to call an offensive foul for the play of the game, then you have to call an offensive foul on the 2nd video in OT. That's called being consistent, and in fact it was the same referee. If you observe the video, the red defensive player obtained LGP perfectly, the white team player ran right thru him. If that's a PC under the basket, then this is a PC at the top because the offensive player did not try to go around him. Consistently is the key here people. Refereeing is about being consistent and if I'm going to call one an offensive foul then I got to call the second one an offensive foul too, because looking at the defense he had established LGP and it is okay to turn or duck to avoid contact. The guy ducked back to prevent the contact under the rim.

I agree that the L or C takes it to the hole IF there is a primary defender on the ball....In this specific situation I think it's the lead's call all the way (IMHO)....In addition, the play occurred in L's primary which causes me to give the L first dibs if I'm the T.

Not true....the T/C have primary coverage all the way in for players involved in the play all the way in. When the defender comes from somewhere else, the official covering that area has primary coverage. The T/C will NOT have a good look at a defender coming into the picture at the last second.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "You're right, JR. I don't have a clue what habitual motion means. That's because I don't own a rule book and never have owned a rule book"?

Not that everybody hasn't already figured that out........