Do you want another "Whatta ya got"?

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That was my impression as well - the contact definitely caused the defender to go down.

Falling back was minimal, made the point that he fell back ever so slightly before contact...wanted to mention it before anyone used that as a case for a block.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Repeat after me....

"it's not all about me."

Again......

"It's not all about me."

Good point. In fact I always say that.

[Old School]

Oh, we got another good one here. Because of distance, I will probably have to rule offensive. However, form the video, I can not tell viewing it two times if the player was not airborne before the defender is set. Another point is the offense doesn't get an advantage here, imo, because the defense is there in front of him all the way up the court. You don't reward bad decision from the players. IOW, he could have just stopped and shot a jump shot. In the other video, the defensive player was not there and at the last second, ran underneath the shooter to try and draw the charge. This one is clear and easier to call because of distance. Advantage defense.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Old School

Oh, we got another good one here. Because of distance, I will probably have to rule offensive. However, form the video, I can not tell viewing it two times if the player was not airborne before the defender is set. Another point is the offense doesn't get an advantage here, imo, because the defense is there in front of him all the way up the court. You don't reward bad decision from the players. IOW, he could have just stopped and shot a jump shot. In the other video, the defensive player was not there and at the last second, ran underneath the shooter to try and draw the charge. This one is clear and easier to call because of distance. Advantage defense.

To me this is more of a chance that I would call "block" on this one than the previous one....Maybe because it's in a fast-break situation or because it seems to me (without the benefit of slow-mo) that the defense sticks out his chest toward the defender and the more I watch it, appear to flop early....I know either of those don't matter, but both tend to lean me toward blocks at game speed.

Don't "fly-off-the-handle" if you don't agree, because I still think it is a "charge", it just doesn't jump out at me like the first video.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

To me this is more of a chance that I would call "block" on this one than the previous one....Maybe because it's in a fast-break situation or because it seems to me (without the benefit of slow-mo) that the defense sticks out his chest toward the defender and the more I watch it, appear to flop early....I know either of those don't matter, but both tend to lean me toward blocks at game speed.

Don't "fly-off-the-handle" if you don't agree, because I still think it is a "charge", it just doesn't jump out at me like the first video.

My first thought was block as well, had to look at it a couple of times to determine if B1 actually had LGP.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

My first thought was block as well, had to look at it a couple of times to determine if B1 actually had LGP.

I'm relieved that I'm not the only one....I'll make another point on this play as well....I think if the L had the same poisition of the camera it would have been a more difficult call....as you can see on the film the C is coming down the court on the left so the L is looking right at the back of B1 on the play which I think made it look more like a "charge" than it does in this clip...."sometimes it's better to be lucky, than good I guess"....

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree. It's almost a duplicate of the other play. The defender just gets both feet down before the shooter becomes airborne.

JR, I noticed your reference to the shooter going airborne. Would this have an impact on the call? I thought that if the defender had LGP, then the responsibility falls on the offensive player, airborne or not. Could you elaborate?

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Vinski

JR, I noticed your reference to the shooter going airborne. Would this have an impact on the call? I thought that if the defender had LGP, then the responsibility falls on the offensive player, airborne or not. Could you elaborate?

I think he's making a reference that B1(defense) needed to establish LGP before shooter goes airborne...if he's airborne before B1 establishes it's a block....

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

I think he's making a reference that B1(defense) needed to establish LGP before shooter goes airborne...if he's airborne before B1 establishes it's a block....

Ahhh yes, I see you guys mean. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

Oh, we got another good one here. Because of distance, I will probably have to rule offensive. However, form the video, I can not tell viewing it two times if the player was not airborne before the defender is set. Another point is the offense doesn't get an advantage here, imo, because the defense is there in front of him all the way up the court. You don't reward bad decision from the players. IOW, he could have just stopped and shot a jump shot. In the other video, the defensive player was not there and at the last second, ran underneath the shooter to try and draw the charge. This one is clear and easier to call because of distance. Advantage defense.

Old School:

Repeat after me:

1) There is no such thing as an offensive foul in NFHS and NCAA rules.

2) Time and distance does not apply to a defender obtaining/establishing a legal guarding position against an offensive player in control of the ball and the offensive player is not airborne at the time the defender obtains/establishes his legal guarding position.

In fact I want you to write it 500 times and have it on my desk by tomorrow morning.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Everybody read OS's last paragraph, now he is changing his decision on why he would have called a block in the first thread.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

..I think if the L had the same poisition of the camera it would have been a more difficult call....as you can see on the film the C is coming down the court on the left so the L is looking right at the back of B1 on the play which I think made it look more like a "charge" than it does in this clip...."sometimes it's better to be lucky, than good I guess"....

This is a great point, although I disagree with the "lucky" part. He's good, because he got a better angle to see the play, and get the right call. This aspect would make this a great training video clip.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

This is a great point, although I disagree with the "lucky" part. He's good, because he got a better angle to see the play, and get the right call. This aspect would make this a great training video clip.

I don't think he got the better angle..thru no fault of his own since it was in transition and think it would have been next to impossible to get across the lane on this play.

What I meant by the "lucky" is that he got the call correct even though he wasn't looking thru the players (which would have been the best angle, which is the angle we get from the video)...but instead was looking at the back of the defensive player...I agree that he could still see whether or not the defensive player had established LGP. My point is, from where he was at, the only thing he could have had was a charge....

Now another point....should that have been the C's call...it's in his primary or since it was transition, should the L take it like he did b/c the C is so far upcourt.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

I don't think he got the better angle..thru no fault of his own since it was in transition and think it would have been next to impossible to get across the lane on this play.

What I meant by the "lucky" is that he got the call correct even though he wasn't looking thru the players (which would have been the best angle, which is the angle we get from the video)...but instead was looking at the back of the defensive player...I agree that he could still see whether or not the defensive player had established LGP.

I disagree. I think from his angle, he could see more clearly whether defender had stopped his motion toward the endline, or whether he was still sliding in. From the camera angle that motion is almost impossible to judge, and is really more the point on a bang-bang block/charge.

I'm willing to give you the "luck" on getting that good angle, though. It's hard to tell whetehr he chose it or just had an angle-angel smiling on him.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I disagree. I think from his angle, he could see more clearly whether defender had stopped his motion toward the endline, or whether he was still sliding in. From the camera angle that motion is almost impossible to judge, and is really more the point on a bang-bang block/charge.

I'm willing to give you the "luck" on getting that good angle, though. It's hard to tell whetehr he chose it or just had an angle-angel smiling on him.

Yes, he could determine that....I'm just going by the emphasis on seeing thru the players....do you agree that the best place to be would have been somewhere in the vicinity of the camera, just maybe a little wider?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

Yes, he could determine that....I'm just going by the emphasis on seeing thru the players....do you agree that the best place to be would have been somewhere in the vicinity of the camera, just maybe a little wider?

I had trouble with the emphasis on "seeing through players" until one time in one of the NFHS refpic publications I noticed that the angle they were recommending didn't always mean being literally 90 degrees to the play. Sometimes, there was a certain amount of back, but there was still some angle to see all four hands and the ball.

I don't know if wider would be a requirement, but having some either back or front on the defender would give the necessary view to determine whether said defender got LGP.