Do you want another "Whatta ya got"?
 

I can already hear it now......take a look guys and tell me what you think....no I was not working the game....Took place in the South Dakota State tournament....official called a "charge"....I can already hear "Old School" :)

PS - Notice the half circle used in NBA in black in the lane..defensive player is a step outside of it...if that makes any difference to anyone.

http://www.chamberlain.k12.sd.us/chs...ntitled-1.html

Charge - tough call because its so bang bang - but charge.

Looks like a pretty easy player-control foul.

I would agree with the official that made the call.

Just guessin' this thread won't be as long as the other one... ;)

Not unless someone pipes in with some "interesting" viewpoints :) :)

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

Good charge call.

blarge





just kidding!

Shucks - what do you mean?

The fact that B1 is starting to fall backward doesn't matter, correct? He is allowed to establish position and "turn" to protect himself??? Just a question....don't have rule book handy...

Maybe he's saying you're just kinda boring?

(Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger!)

Huh, maybe you're right.

I'm going back to drink my Kool-Aid.

You're right. The defender can protect himself. I thought that the defender wasn't falling backward though; I thought he got knocked backward. There was a lot of contact.

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

Repeat after me....

"it's not all about me."

Again......

"It's not all about me."

For whatever reason, on my computer, the video freezes for just a moment right as the defensive player is getting his foot down. I'll take everyone else's word that the feet are there in time and say that the contact is a charge.

That said, as Mr. Grammar Guy, I'm a bit disappointed with South Dakota. Apparently, they play "Basket Ball" and they have a tournament of boys instead of a boys' basketball tourney.

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.

Good point. In fact I always say that.

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.

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"....

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....

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Sure and I agree...after watching the replay and the kids reaction, I think the C might have made the call on the play.....which was contrary to my thinking before....You also hear two whistles, I don't know if it's a "double-tweeter" or two separate officials blowing their whistles...If the C did, he would have had the "look thru" to make the correct call...

That's why I said this is another close one. However, the distance, though I know Mark it's not relevent to the rule, but the time and distance factor between the players is what helped me to make this call, and get the play right.

Even if the player would have been airborne, he does not get to come down where he would have landed had the defender obtained LGP. Principles of vertically says you can go up and come back down in your space, but not 3 feet past where you started your jump or shot. The same rule would apply if you had a 3-point shooter get taken out by the defense before returning to the floor.

Time and distance for my sake in getting this call right is very beneficial. Use it to your advantage if it helps. Don't believe the garbage that Mark and the others will try and tell you (kool-aid) on time and distance. You remove that, like what we have in the other tread, and now I'm more so guessing at what I thought just happened. If I'm not 100% for sure, then just like baseball, tie goes to the runner, and the runner in baseball is the offense, which means BLOCK!!!! Here, charged, 100% sure.

MTD, repeat after me. There ain't no such thing as a Superman, which means there is no such thing as a super refereee. If you don't like me saying offensive foul. Then maybe you need to go back to hibernation, or whatever state you where in before I woke you up.

Peace....

There are no ties in baseball...either the runner beats the throw or he doesn't. Obviously you don't own or haven't read a baseball rules book either. :rolleyes:

No, don't believe Mark and the others. Read the rule for yourself, where it specifically says "Time and distance are not a factor...." Try basing it on time and distance, and you're going to call too many blocks.

Can you quote me the rule that says this?

So, you're saying the tie goes to the offense, but it's still a charge? And what rule, basketball or otherwise, do you use to back this assertion?

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid, Old School. These comments are absolutely incorrect, by rule. By using what <B>you</B> think is correct, then you are making it about Old School, not about the players. Remember, it's not about you, it's about the game...it's not about you, it's about the game...

In NCAA men's, once the ball leaves the shooters hand, and contact occurs at the basket, it's not an offensive foul, it's a common foul. In NFHS, it will be a CHARGE, no basket. So let's say in the video above. Let's say the shooter release the ball, but the defender still obtained LGP. Shooter momentum crashes into defender in LGP status, no basket, offensive foul or CHARGE!

You lost me on that one. If I got a tie, in other words I'm not sure I got offense or defense, and I got a major collision like what we discuss in the other tread. I got a block, defense everytime. I'm not taking the ball from the offense unless I'm sure. You see, my mind is clear. I don't drink the kool-aid.

When exactly does the defender obtain LGP? That's all that matters here.
Just to be clear, this is a "charge" no matter what. "Charge" simply means running through another player. The question is whether it's a player control foul.
You mis-spelled blank. I'm just sayin'.

So, what does that have to do with my question? Are you drinking too much Kool-Aid? The question was about the statement you made:
Again, the question is: what rule backs up your assertion?

It doesn't surprise me you're lost on this one. You have been drinking too much Kool-Aid. Where does it say in the rules that anytime you're not sure, it is a foul on the defense everytime?

Remember, every time you make a statement that is not backed up by rule, you are making it about yourself, not the game. You're the one drinking the Kool-Aid. Repeat after me: it's not about me, it's about the game...it's not about what I think, it's about the game...

Rushmore:

...sigh...it looks like I might be wrong; we could make it to 19 pages at this rate...

Appears we are off and running...

This is not saying that you can establish position while a player is airborne, right? You are meaning that as long as you have established before going airborne it doesn't matter how much ground you cover, if you run into the person its player-control! Just for my clarification...

I don't know what I've missed these last few days, if LGP is achieved then it's a charge....if not a block...if it's close you use your judgement and SELL THE CRAP out of it...

You got it, perfect! I will just add, view the whole play when it's really close. The more things you take into consideration, the beter your call will be, and the easier it will be to defend. Also, your calls will be more accurate. You go guessing and you put yourself at risk of being wrong. For me, the more time and space I have availalbe to me to view the whole play, the better I am at determining what exactly just happened and not reacting to what I think just happened. Somewhere it's written to see the whole play thru before making your decision.

There are only two things to take into consideration on an airborne shooter block/charge play. No, they're not time and distance.
First, see when the defense gets into position. Second, see when the offensive player left the floor. Third, know which happened first. Don't make it more complicated than that, or you'll end up complaining about the kool-aide.

I got a player control.

This is the damage the kool-aide is doing to you. It causes your one-track mind to lock-up on one subject, and everything that is being discussed from this point on is about this one subject. Okay, I'm going to try this real slow for you mentally challenged, it's all about me forum members.

Time and distance is very important to officiating the game of basketball. Hence, I am not talking about establishing LGP. Maybe I better say that again for the kool-aide drinkers. I am not talking about establishing LGP. You need to get to the proper area on the court to be able to correctly referee any play. Time and distance is of immense importance to this. There is a term in officiating we call straight-line (SL) and if you don't know what it is, look it up. You need to be in a position to see both players. If you are SL, it will take some time to get to the proper distance you need to be at to properly referee the play. If something happens while you are in transition to get to this point, it is very likely, you may miss it.

In this play, if I am standing where the camera angle is, I have a great position to view this play. I can see both players. If, I'm on the other side as the Lead, I need to come over to view this play. While I'm in transition, I won't have the same angle as if I was standing on the other side to begin with. Without being able to see the entire play, my call may not be as accurate. If someone tries to tells you there is only TWO things to consider in a block charge play. Don't believe them. They may also try to get you to drink some kool-aide. Don't do it, run away from them the first chance you get!

Again, as many others have tried to tell you, time and distance have nothing to do with this play - stop trying to use that argument to justify making bad calls...secondly, this was in transition - or for a non-basketball type like you, it was a fast break...there is no way that the Lead could have gotten across the court in time to "get a better angle" as you put it...the angle the Lead had was a fine angle to see if the defender had established LGP and took the blow to the torso - which is what happened and the Lead made a great call...

As stated in an earlier post, the L didn't make the call, the C did, you can see by the players' reactions...which is exactly how it should have been done considering court coverage...I think he probably had a good angle to see the play......

I will agree that the L would have had a hard time seeing through the defense and if he would have been forced to make the call (no whistle from center) then it would have been a little bit of a guess since he couldn't see between the players.

I understand that the C made the call on the play in the video - I was just responding to OS'c continual drivel...but for you, RR, I would ask "Why does the L need to see BETWEEN the players to make a PC/block call?" on this play...he/she can see that the defender had LGP and took the blow directly in the torso, so why does he/she need to see between them to make that call?

In officiating, the words "time and distance" as a phrase never, never, never refer to where or when or how the official is seeing the play. "Time and distance" are used to talk about screening or guarding an opponent without the ball. Period. Do not ever use those words as a phrase in any other context.

You SHOULD be talking about establishing LGP. It's the only criteria by which to judge this play. The bang-bang block/charge play depends only on LGP.

In this play, the camera angle represents a very bad view. First, it's too close. Second, it's impossible to tell when the defender establishes LGP, since the motion is directly toward the camera. When I first posted that the lead had a better look, I hadn't relized that this was 3-whistle. I now agree with Rushmore and others that point out that the C had the best look. Even so, the lead has a better look than the camera.

And believe you instead, in referring to concepts and philosophies that have nothing to do with any recognized officiating guidelines? No thanks.

PS please stop with the kool aid discussion. It gives you no credibility.

If lead felt he/she needed to make this call, he/she would need to see enough between to see that the defender had arms clearly straight up, or straight out. In the OP, that's pretty obvious, but in a simliar play where the defender's hands might not be in view from behind, ref wouldn't know if there was some hand action prior to the torso contact.

True...but in this play on the video??? L could certainly have made that call without having to see between the players...that's a great rule of thumb (being able to see between), but it is by no means an absolute and this video gives a very clear picture of an instance when there is no need to see between...

Kinda what I was going to say too....if you notice the clip, the ball never left A1's hand (because he elected not to shoot for some reason) but the L would have had a hard time seeing that.....also if there was a significant "flop" it would have been hard for the L to see that from across the lane....My point is and I've said it in othe posts.....the only call the L could have had was a "charge" which would have been right and he would have had to have something, there's no way that's a no call, but he wouldn't have had the look that I'd like to have to make a call like that.

I'm not arguing the fact that he wold have called "charge".... but I don't think it would have been a call that had all the info needed, it would have been a "looks like a charge" call.....we know that we all have made these calls and I'm not saying that's wrong...what I am saying is the C did a great job of hustling and having a whistle so the L didn't have to make it from across the lane, a call that they don't want you to make in a 3-person crew.

You were saying time and distance made this call easier for you. Everyone here knows you were talking about the time and distance between the two players, not the time it takes for the official to get into position. You can change what you're saying now, but you can't change history by stating the obvious (that it takes time for an official to move a certain distance.)

Whether you can see it or not has no bearing on what the correct call is and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm shocked that OS can't bypass the laws of physics. He ignores other rules as he sees fit.

Soooooo.....

It comes down to whether you believe RecLeague Ronnie or the rule book. The rule book says:
<b>NFHS Rule 4-23-4</b>--<i>"Guarding an opponent <b>with the ball</b> or a stationary opponent, <b>NO</b> time or distance is required to obtain an initial <b>legal</b> position."</i>

Note that the rule says <b>"an initial legal position"</b>.

Iow, <b>everything</b> written above by TrollBoy is his usual pile of unintelligable, misleading, steaming crap.

Ignore. It's just another tie for the dumbest post ever made on this forum.

Old School:

Yes I do take offense when you do not use correct terminology. When one does not use the correct language of his profession or in our case avocation, it causes the people who read his posts to think one of two things: 1) He does not pay attention to detail; or 2) He does not know his subject matter. In your case it is almost 100% the latter.

MTD, Sr.

Old School:

Yes, officials should not get straight lined. Yes, officials should work to get good angles to see the whole play. And if you remember one of my posts from the now closed infamous thread, I said the officials must also utilize two V's of visioin: a horizontal V and a vertical V.

And what are the TWO things that only need to be considered in a block/charge play? Please enlighten the group.

MTD, Sr.

Those aren't mutually exclusive items. So, Old School is also 100% the former. That give him 200% -- he's twice the referee Jon Diebler ever was.

Blasphemy!

Now, don't be hatin' on Jon!

(Rest his soul...)

Bob:

That's cold. :)

MTD, Sr.

I don't think we are disagreeing with each other here - I'm just pointing out that seeing between players isn't an absolute in order to make a call...I do have a question - from your previous post quoted above - what difference does this make??? Do we care if the ball was released? It's still a PC foul, right - or are you talking only NCAA-M???

Yeah, I think we are in agreement, too.....the "ball being released" comment was because if you are looking at the back and the ball isn't released for the shot then usually something caused that and perhaps that was a reach on the defense before the contact which the L wouldn't have seen (just hypothetical statement)...as you can see on the video I just think he forgot to shoot and nothing caused him to not shoot the ball.

Thanks for the comments and this has been a good discussion for me and hopefully others.

Gotcha...and agree that it's always nice to have a pleasant conversation...

So who are you, the referee cop. If you read what I said, which points clearly you do not interpret what you read. I preference what I said with I am not talking about LGP, establishing LGP, or a block charge. I'm talking about getting into position to accurately make the call. So in my discussion, time and distance is very important and valid to the topic under discussion. If you can not handle that. Then maybe you need to quite drinking that kool-aide that's going around. I've warn you it's not good for you. Causes your brain to only see, hear, read one thing. That's not good.

I am starting to favor the opinion that most of you officials out here are the most uptight people in the world. You have to be right all the time. What's up with that? Is that the drawback or side effects of a lifetime of officiating. It poisons your brain? You have been into that rulebook so hard that certain words can not be used to describe a basketball situation because the rulebook uses it differently? Get over yourself!

Okay, rant is over, go back to hating on me and talking about LGP and block charge. I know your one-track mind can't handle nothing else.

I wouldn't expect anything less from anyone else on this Board, or any other official for that matter, to strive to perfection in every basketball game they work. If you don't strive for perfection, you shouldn't even be on a CYO game.

OOO....400 posts....do I get silver-plated fishnets???? :p

Uptight? Naw, we just like to point out when <b>you</b> are wrong. The tally so far is 516 posts made by you, and 516 wrong. You're batting a cool 1.000. Also, you've tied the record for the dumbest post ever made on this forum 516 times. Congratulations.

You're well on the way to the Troll Hall of Fame.

Rainmaker, I think you hurt its feelings. Has anyone fed it today?

Get over yourself, and repeat after me.

It's not all about me,
Again, it's not all about me.

Congratulations.

You're now a perfect 517 for 517.

And you are still a perfect azz! Remember, it's not all about me.

518 ties for the dumbest post ever now. Again, congratulations.

JR, some of those 518 (and counting) posts should count as two or three, so the total number of ties may be unknowable.

Old School:

If you want to people to stop abusing you like Frank Burns, either learn the rules of basketball how to apply them correctly or stop posting. I have giving you a history of the hows and whys of the rules but you still think you can interpret and apply the rules any old way you see fit.

MTD, Sr.

What I want is to be financially secure. I have no control over how you and the rest of your posse think, feel, etc., so me not gonna worry about that! Say and feel whatever, it's a free country, and it's all on you.
Really need to lay off the kool-aide. Just like I can't stop you from throwing officials under the bus, you can't stop me from having an opinion.
and I appreciate that!
Not any way, but maybe not exactly the way you would do it, then again, I'm not trying to be like you. You see, I was one of the guys that refused to drink the kool-aide and ran off. I lived to ref another day...

Get over yourself and stop drinking that kool-aide...!!!

I'm glad you're taking such an interest in dumb posts. You ever heard the saying, it takes one to know one!

Old School:

I do not interpret the rules the way I want to interpret them, you do that. There is a correct way to officiate and incorrect way to officiate. People who choose to interpret the rules their own way officiate incorrecty and make it all about them and not about the game. Sorry, but you jsut keep ringing up dumber and dumber posts. Some of us actually sit on national officiatng committees, are rules interpreters at the local or state level, and are personal friends with past and current members of the NFHS Rules Committee. Please stop posting until you learn the rules and how to officiate. You bring nothing to this Forum but foolish postings that show how little you know about officaiting the game.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, if you are so accomplish in this field, and you're on all the national boards and such. BTW, I'm happy for you. But seriously, why are you so worried me. If you are as smart as you say you are. You would just take me for what it's worth. Now, I'm going to be serious for a minute. Okay, I lied but the kool-aide is spiked, you got to stop drinking it before it's too late. That's what making you think like that. It's making you think that I'm a valid fish but I'm not. I'm just OS having some fun.

Oh, and btw, I do believe in, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. IOW, if you can't take it in return, best to not dish it out.

Thank you for finally admitting what most of us have known/suspected for a while.

Somehow, I think you believe this only goes one way.

Old School:

What are you babbling about? And we would all like to know what is this Kool-aide you are jabbering on about? Furthermore, we would all like to now what your credentials are. And why am I concerned about you? Because like the vast majority of the people on this Forum we take pride in our avocation and do not like an incompetent official making us look bad.

MTD, Sr.

It looks like I may be the only one who believes that the offensive player has started to leave his feet when the guy sets himself. I got a block, but I am selling it like an SOB to anyone who wants to know. Its a toughy though

Jon:

I do not have a problem per se if one official sees a block and one sees a charge on a bang-bang play like the one in posted in this thread. The discussion in this thread is how to apply the guarding and screening rules. Old School thinks that he does not have to apply the rules correctly; he wants to apply the rules the way he wants to apply the rules any way he sees fits.

With regard to how you viewed the play. This is a difference between a player starting to leave his feet and a player has already left his feet. Either a player is airborne or not airborne. If the offensive player is not airborne when the defensive player obtained/established a LGP then the contact has to be a charge.

MTD, Sr.

The latest results are 522 for 522. You're still perfect.

He finally admits that he's a troll, to no one's surprise.

Of course he's started to leave his feet. The question is, has he actually beocome airborne before the defender gets LGP.

I can not make you look bad. If you feel you look bad, that is because of your own insecurities.

If I mess up a rule or an interpretation of a rule, that's on me and has nothing to do with you. However, you trying to make me feel bad about myself and my officiating makes you suspect to everyone else. The suspicion is why are you trying so hard. That makes you look bad and a fool. One more thing, you will never break my spirits and love for the sport. As I indicated before, the game is bigger than me and you, but I don't think you get that.

Must be in the kool-aide.....

Come on now, that's just not true. If we get to the same place at the same time, what difference does it make how we got there. You see, some people like to take the bus, some people take the train, and some people like to drive. You figure the only way to get there is one way, and if this particular way is not followed, exactly, then rein down all the sins of heavon on this person. He is not fit to officiate, and on, and on, and on....

A wise man once said, be weary of anyone who speaks bad of others, for there is almost always a hiddden agenda.

And you sir, are still a perfect a$$hole.

Old School:

First, we are not getting to the same place. You insist on applying an incorrect inerpretation of the rules; that means we cannot get to the same place. Second, you are not fit to officiate, you posts prove it. Third, there is no hidden agenda, you are not fit to officiate.

MTD, Sr.

We got the same call Mark.

Remember we talked about looking bad. Here is a perfect example of you making yourself look bad. You have never seen me work. How can you honestly make this statement? I'll answer that. Because you are lying. You have a hidden agenda.

Your move sir. Some friendly advice, be careful, and lay off the damn kool-aide!

Probably from your idiotic responses, and the fact that you're now still a perfect 527 out of 527 when it comes to tying for the dumbest posts ever made on this forum.

NOTE: Edited to include his latest moronic response.

Jim Jones and the People's Temple. Look it up if you don't know, but I will not post the link.

Still into commenting on dumb posts, what I tell you. It takes one to know one.

Update.

The score is now 528 for 528.

Only you would know or even care.

:D <i></i>