Block/Charge?

[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 bob jenkins

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.

#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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

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 guess and the guess 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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

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.

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

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

[canuckrefguy]

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".

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

Your wise man has never been married.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

OS:

You are no wise man (I know Peter Webb, and you are no Peter Webb.). Your posts on this forum prove that. I have given you history lessons of how the guarding/screening rules came to be written in the early 1950's and how they are to be applied but you just will not listen. You do not understand the rules and refuse to listen to people who really know the rules. I believe that you could even drive Mary Struckhoff batty.

I am not being arrogant and jumping to conclusions. You do NOT know anything about the rules. Your writings prove that. Please, please fill out your profile completely and stop hiding. Stop hiding behind a nom de plume. We want to know who you are and where you live so we can avoid officiating with you. (See my profile if you need an example.)

If I teach a basketball officiating class this year I am going to write to Brad and ask his permission to use your posts as an example of incorrect rules application.

MTD, Sr.