Block/Charge?

[Drizzle]

Originally Posted by dkmz17

Time and distance are irrelevant for an offensive player in control such as in this video. On the other hand, if the offensive player did not have the ball in the video, then the foul would have been on the defense, correct? Going further, what would the correct call be if the offensive player had touched but fumbled the ball and not had control when the contact was made?

Sorry nobody has answered your good questions, but this thread has basically been hijacked. Also, someone should please correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't have my books with me to confirm my answer, which is:

In both of your situations, the offensive player would not have control of the ball which means the time/space criteria applies, which means it is a block in both of your situations. Fumbles by definition mean no control, so you cannot call a player control foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Drizzle

Sorry nobody has answered your good questions, but this thread has basically been hijacked. Also, someone should please correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't have my books with me to confirm my answer, which is:

In both of your situations, the offensive player would not have control of the ball which means the time/space criteria applies, which means it is a block in both of your situations. Fumbles by definition mean no control, so you cannot call a player control foul.

Time and distance does not apply to a player in control of the ball and is not airborne. The player in the original post had control of the ball and was not airborne when the defensive player obtained/established a legal guarding position. More the fifty years ago the Rules Committee affimred that an offensive player should expect to be guarded from the instant he ganed control of the ball. It was this expectation of being guarded is the foundation for how the guarding/screening rules are written.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by dkmz

if the offensive player did not have the ball in the video, then the foul would have been on the defense, correct? Going further, what would the correct call be if the offensive player had touched but fumbled the ball and not had control when the contact was made?

This is actually a very good question. It was discussed at some length in this recent thread:

Pick / Charge

[Drizzle]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Time and distance does not apply to a player in control of the ball and is not airborne. The player in the original post had control of the ball and was not airborne when the defensive player obtained/established a legal guarding position. More the fifty years ago the Rules Committee affimred that an offensive player should expect to be guarded from the instant he ganed control of the ball. It was this expectation of being guarded is the foundation for how the guarding/screening rules are written.

MTD, Sr.

I realize that. I was answering dkmz's questions as what would be the call if the offensive player did not have control of the ball. Sorry for not clarifying that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Drizzle

I realize that. I was answering dkmz's questions as what would be the call if the offensive player did not have control of the ball. Sorry for not clarifying that.

You are forgiven and I grant you dispensation. Say ten Hail Mary's and do not let it happen again.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

You are forgiven and I grant you dispensation. Say ten Hail Mary's and do not let it happen again.

MTD, Sr.

Actually, Mark, it's you who owes penance since you're the one who misunderstood his intent.

You need to defend ten Hail Mary's under the watchful eye of Touchdown Jesus.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, Mark, it's you who owes penance since you're the one who misunderstood his intent.

You need to defend ten Hail Mary's under the watchful eye of Touchdown Jesus.

Go Buckeyes!!

MTD, Sr.

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

As I looked at this in real time, my first reaction was "block." After reading the thread, I can understand the PC foul call. I do have a question.

A1 lands with his left foot between the feet of B1 (A1's left foot near B1's right foot). A1 turns, weight shifting forward over his left foot and starts the dribble at the same time making contact with B1, not moving the left foot. Because the foot is between the defender's feet, would this be considered not allowing the offensive player to land, even though contact was not made on the actual landing?

Since DKMZ's old question was answered, maybe mine will be also if I rephrase. B1 gets position as in the video, A1 lands with his left foot clearly between the feet of B1 (in the actual video it is not that cut and dry) - no contact on landing, A1 turns, weight shifting forward but not outside the verticle plane of A1, A1 begins dribble and at the same time makes contact with B1. Do we still have the charge?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

B1 gets position as in the video, A1 lands with his left foot clearly between the feet of B1 (in the actual video it is not that cut and dry) - no contact on landing, A1 turns, weight shifting forward but not outside the verticle plane of A1, A1 begins dribble and at the same time makes contact with B1. Do we still have the charge?

From your description, it sounds like it's still a charge, especially with no contact on landing. I can't really say for sure without seeing it. I did see the video at the start of this thread though, and imo it certainly was cut and dried that it was a charge. No doubt at all in my mind on that one.

What Bob Jenkins posted back in post #3 on page 1 is still valid. You allow the player with the ball to land. If he lands without contact, you can't have a foul. After that, the LGP rules take over and no time/distance is necessary on the part of the defender.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I did see the video at the start of this thread though, and imo it certainly was cut and dried that it was a block. No doubt at all in my mind on that one.

What Bob Jenkins posted back in post #3 on page 1 is still valid. You allow the player with the ball to land. If he lands without contact, you can't have a foul. After that, the LGP rules take over and no time/distance is necessary on the part of the defender.

?????????????????????

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

?????????????????????

Written without thinking, obviously. I went back and changed it.

Thanks, Juulie.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Written without thinking, obviously. I went back and changed it.

Thanks, Juulie.

You're welcome, but I didn't do it for your sake. It was just that seeing you agree with OS threatened to jerk the rug right out from under my entire worldview. I knew, I just knew, you didn't mean it, but I couldn't take the chance!

[canuckref]

i don't see this play as being as black and white as y'all here do. the defender is literally milliseconds away from "submarining" an airborne player with his back turned. i find the attack on those who would call a block a little over the top and hard headed...sometimes when a ref who makes a call (or a post here)cannot see the other side, I think we need to be open to others opinions.
I believe I would have called pc foul here, but that does not discount others opinions...thats all they are...they did not make this call.

Unfortunately some here find it hard to take off the whistle, this is not the court...it's a discussion forum right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by canuckref

i don't see this play as being as black and white as y'all here do. the defender is literally milliseconds away from "submarining" an airborne player with his back turned. i find the attack on those who would call a block a little over the top and hard headed...sometimes when a ref who makes a call (or a post here)cannot see the other side, I think we need to be open to others opinions.
I believe I would have called pc foul here, but that does not discount others opinions...thats all they are...they did not make this call.

Unfortunately some here find it hard to take off the whistle, this is not the court...it's a discussion forum right?

IIRC, no one is attacking those who might have called a block in real time. It's a close play, and we miss some, and in the OP, the "best position" was where the camera was, not where either of the officials were.

We're objecting to those who agree with all the relevant facts that go into the call, and then choose to ignore the rule and call the opposite and then try to defend that decision.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You're welcome, but I didn't do it for your sake. It was just that seeing you agree with OS threatened to jerk the rug right out from under my entire worldview. I knew, I just knew, you didn't mean it, but I couldn't take the chance!

No, upon first reaction, he saw and penalize just like any other official in that situation, including myself. BLOCK! The only difference is I admit it.