#1, I'm not ignoring the rule. I'm arguing reality over the rule. I understand it's a PC. In real time, I need instant replay to verify that, which means 9 times out of ten, this call is going to be ruled a BLOCK. The fact that you guys can't take the whislte off and just deal with that reality is a problem.

If you expect that everytime this type of play happens it should be ruled PC. That is unrealistic.

Let's just be real, members are attacked on this forum for having a different opinion from the norm.

To be real, you looked at the replay several times and still insisted that it was a block. You also insisted after viewing the replay that the defender ran under the offensive player; that's patently ridiculous. You insisted that the defender must give the offensive player a step in one of your posts. That's because you simply don't know or understand the basics of the rules being discussed, even though Bob Jenkins laid those basics out in the third post of this thread. And, to top it all off, several times you stated that if you didn't get a good look at the play, you have to make a <b>guess</b> and the <b>guess</b> should be a block.

It's not a matter of having a different opinion; it's a matter of not even having the slightest clue about what is being discussed but still insisting that your stoopid answer is right because of some completely stoopid and irrelevant reasons.

No , the big difference is that you won't admit you're wrong. It may be that some people would have called it a block during the game flow. But it SHOULD have been PC. JR would be willing to admit that, and you won't. Being wrong is one thing, but defending being wrong is entirely different.

There's a difference between "this type of play" and "this play." There's also a difference between what "should be ruled" and "what is ruled."

This play should be ruled PC everytime. (That's the answer to the question in the OP.)

This play will not be ruled PC everytime.

This type of play should not be ruled PC everytime.

Given the agreed upon facts of the OP (defender has both feet on the floor facing an opponent on the floor with the ball), there can be no "opinion" on the correct ruling.

I really haven't partcipated rules wise in this thread, but I want to commend everybody for having done a great job in disecting the rules to show that this play was a charge and how important it is that the rules are applied correctly and that fouls are called using someone's convoluted nonsense.

MTD, Sr.

I've admitted several times that this was a PC foul. Several times. I also admitted that in real time, I need instant replay to see and judge the play correctly. The answer to the OP is PC, no doubt. The answer in real time, might not always be PC. That's the reality, like it or not, that's the reality.

OS:

You are so full of horse manure. You have been advocating against the guarding rules as they are written this entire thread. Your post above just validates the fact that you have no credibility at all. Please go away until you are ready to apologize to everybody on this forum for you idiotic interpretations of the rules.

MTD, Sr.

The call is almost irrelevant.

What I REALLY noticed is that the official in question made about the weakest, meekest, most wishy-washy-looking call to the table I've ever seen. That just screams out "oh my, I just f***ed up, please berate me."

FWIW - charge. Offensive player had a full landing before the crash. He has to "expect to be guarded".

Admitting that you need instant replay to see and judge the play correctly means that you are admitting that you are inadequate as a referee. Are you really saying that? The reality is that most good officials get this call right most of the time. If you are saying you can't get this call right, you're saying you're not a good official. Period.

I can't agree more with the philosophy of a few of the posters on here about teaching about proper positioning to be able to see the same angle, or as close as possible, as we have from the camera.

It has been stated that this is a great reason for the slot (coaches!!!), but lacking that, certainly it is a good reason for the lead to not bail on the play (presumed, but not certain since we can't see his position, but he did come a long way to report).

Great things for newer officials to think about. Knowing the rule is very important to having the knowledge to make the ruling. Positioning yourself to apply the rule however can be just as important. Great video for us all to learn more.

Also, I couldn't help but notice the trail wobbling up the court....funny stuff!

A wise man once said, he who has done no wrong, has nothing to apologize for.

Stating my opinion on a call should not be something I should have to apologize for. Maybe you and some of the others should apologize to me for being so arrogant and jumping to conclusions.

Your wise man has never been married.

No, I'm just being real and telling the truth. Some people don't like the truth, some people can't handle the truth. Are you one of those people?

I caught that, "most of the time" What are you really saying here? 50-50, 60-40, 70-30 of the good officials get this call right "MOST" of the time. The reality is, this is a tough call to make correctly. I don't think you want to judge an officials ability over how he calls this call on the fly. After the fact, we can argue until the sky is purple, it doesn't really matter now does it? It only matters in the game.

I challenge you to show this play to 10 officials, without the replay. Ask them for there call. I bet your total would be something like 9 out of 10, block, and remember the camera got the best angle. Not the guys on the floor.

Dan, you are hereby elevated to "wise man".

You have to be married for this to be the case? :D

Peace