So another one of those block/charge calls
 

Yes guys, I found another one of these.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NR_pexM1GdU

I want to say that the call was called correctly with the block, but of course there's probably something I'm missing that's obvioius. So what do you guys think, and could you explain your thought process behind your call?

On another note, I'd like to thank everyone for the helpful responses in the previous thread. You don't know how helpful this will be for me in the fall.

Block all the way. The defender kept coming forward and caused all the contact. If the player had just stopped, then it would have been a charge or PC foul on the offensive player (hard to tell if he had the ball at the time of contact).

Peace

First the comment of the announcer is completely inaccurate. He states, "You have to give him room to move the ball, and Pulmer (sp?)[White #11] did not give him room to move the ball."
Under NFHS rules a defensive player does not have to give an opponent with the ball any time or distance.

4-23-4 . . . Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:
a. No time or distance is required to obtain an initial legal position.

So, please, totally disregard anything that fool says.

Now to make a proper decision on this play we must determine if the defender (White #11) obtained initial legal guarding position on Blue #32.

Here is the definition of ILGP:
4-23-2 . . . To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.

To me it looks as if the defender meets both of these requirements prior to the time of contact. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the defender did not violate any of the provisions of 4-23-3, which state what he may legally do AFTER obtaining ILGP in order to maintain it. Thus I disagree with Rut's opinion that the defender was moving toward the offensive player at the time of contact, nor do I feel that the defender initated the contact.

However, the last point that Rut makes is critical. He states that it is tough to tell if the offensive player had possession of the ball at the time of the contact. I fully agree with him on this point. I had to watch the video multiple times to determine that the Blue #32 never catches the ball although he certainly tried to. He simply was never able to gain control. That means that the requirements for the defender are governed by a different rule. The defender must abide by 4-23-5 instead of 4-23-4. Here is the text of that rule:
4-23-5 . . . Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain an initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.
d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

Since the defender came up right behind the opponent while he was attempting to catch the ball, I have to say that the defender did not give him "time and/or distance to avoid contact." I would say that one stride would have been sufficient in this case, given that the opponent was looking the other way at the ball and not moving rapidly down the court. Since he failed to do this, when the contact occurred the guard must be ruled to not have legal position, and the proper call is a blocking foul.

However, if the offense player, Blue #23, had caught the ball cleanly, or if one considers the offensive player to be stationary as he was attempting to catch the ball, then I believe that the proper call would have been a player control foul for charging. Sometimes the smallest details can make all the difference!

This was a really tough call to make for an official at full speed in live action. In the end, I think that the official made a decision and went with it.

I must say that had I been on the court and had to make a call on the spot at full speed, I would have likely gone the other way. I would have been watching the defender establish his position and not been focused on the offensive player struggling to control the ball.

Nice suspenders on the coach. Great acting job too on the foul. He's got a great future ahead of him in the AAU ranks.

Well, I really couldn't say for sure because of the camera angle, but I'll go with Rut.......not for any definitive rules reasons but mainly because Nevada disagreed with him. :D

My initial thought was a PC foul.

Before any contact, I see A1 with the act of receiving the ball onto his palm and then his palm moving more to the top of the ball to start a dribble. In all that while, he didn't lose grip of the ball. For this reason, I've got possession by A1.

In fact, the hand is still pushing down when the contact occurs. In my mind, there's no way to argue that this isn't possession when the contact occurs.

Furthermore, B1 did have both feet down and at the frames I was able to pause the YouTube video, I see that B1 was not moving forward at the time of contact.

I've got A1 possession and B1 position. Player control. Excellent play by white #11 (Pulmer?). Tough spot to gamble on though. He got lucky.

What would I have called on the court during the game? Who knows.....

What Rut said.

I think you have to call a block for safety reasons. ;)

White needs to make their free throws.

Close play on the B/C, but why is white taking a chance of putting blue on the line in that situation? Not smart.

White coach does a lot of gesturing after the call and some officials might have whacked him for the display.

So what I see here is a white team with not very good composure. Teams reflect the personality of their coaches. :)

And to keep the coach happy......

That's the two main reasons to make <b>any</b> call.:D

IMO, the offensive player never gained control of the ball, which means that you need to allow him space to avoid the contact. The offensive player never saw the defender because his head was still turned around.

Not an easy call to make in real time, but I've got a block.

Let's say that A1 did have control of the ball. What do you have then?

Also you have to be a State Final Official to get these calls correct as well. If you work D1 or college you are in big trouble. ;)

Peace

If you need me for anything further, I'll be right over here.....:D
http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/popcorn.gif

I'm surprised no one mentione the T during white's FTs (the guy who didn't call the foul).

Nice haircut.

I've got block. Unless I knew the kid from childhood, and how hard he'd been working on drawing the charge, and then I might have a PC. If I liked him.:p

This is my opinion too.

Even if he did have possession, I'd still have a block. Defender was still moving forward at the point of contact.

In Texas, at least my part of Texas, the T would have made this call as he would have been right there. Even with two officials the T is table side.

Do you disagree that while the contact is imminent, A1 has his hand on top of the ball and is pushing it down to the ground? If so, state why.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince anyone that A1 had possession - I want to learn why my interp of possession seems to be in the minority. :)

Disregard the above...three whistles...my bad :o

That's called a DanDo.

Where his hand is has nothing to do with control as it relates to this situation. The player was receiving a pass that was not at all controlled. If after the ball hitting his hand, then the floor I would allow this player to grab the ball with both hands (one if he could do it) and dribble. A dribble is a conscious act. This player was just trying to gather in the pass and he did not do that.

Peace

So then we just have a difference of opinion. That's fair. I'm comfortable with ruling the hand-to-ball contact is the start of a legal dribble.

I see this play all the time when a pass does not quite reach its target and the hand essentially "bats" the ball to the floor. Then a player grabs the ball and dribbles and I have yet to see anyone complain. Usually someone does not start a dribble without grabbing the ball first. Not saying technically you could be wrong, but I do not think that uses good common sense. I really feel that way in a play like this.

Peace

I didn't see "control". It was VERY close. I sometimes conclude as you do that the hand on top the ball pushing it down is the start of a dribble...but not always....just depends on how much "control" I think the player has. It's a pretty fine line.

Back when I was in college, I was asked to be the shot clock operator for the basketball games.

They use 3-man and there was a sitch where B1 reached in, put his hand on the ball, and pushed it to the ground. A1 and B1's backs were to the C who was moving up closer to the division line to see the play better. I reset the clock (and I was smart enough to first look at the display before resetting it). I then reset it again once A1 regained possession. (The whole play was about 15-18 feet from me.)

It was the type of play where B1 was able to get a quick handle on it, but wouldn't have been able to keep it because he was off balance.

Seeing that A1 was closely guarded near the division line, and not theatening the goal, the T (crew chief, now D1 official) blew his whistle and came over to me. He wanted to know why I reset the clock. He knew I am an official and I explained to him what happened, including the value of the pre-reset clock.

He agreed with me that the clock should have been reset (twice in this case). It all happened very quickly and the sitch re-enforced (sp?) to me that the act of pushing the ball to the ground must mean possession.

Disagree. Change that to <b>might</b> mean possession. It is, and always will be, a judgment call between a dribble and a muff.

True; I guess I neglected to make it clear that the difference between my sitch and the sitch in the video is that a foul didn't complicate the ruling. In my sitch, B1 deliberately placed his hand on the ball, and pushed it to the ground. That same act would constitute the allowed dribble if B1 then caught the ball.

You're a better man than I am. You can read minds.:)

Thank you! I like to keep in mind that often Team B will try to steal the ball from Team A. ;) They call it a turnover. :P

Yabut....is it also a dribble <b>every</b> time the defense <b>touches</b> the ball?

No, of course not. For this exact reason, we have a difference of opinion.

Silly goose, are you trying to put words into my mouth?

All of us clock girls can.

FWIW, I have a block on the video play.

Put the popcorn away, I'm ignoring his remark...the one I'm sure is against forum rules.

And for what it's worth...the defender had both feet on the floor facing, and WASN'T moving forward at the point of contact. The question becomes was there control by the offensive player.

It's close, but no there wasn't...block.

JR, not sure why you keep pushing this issue. There are times when we do have to judge what the player is trying to do.

• player in the lane gets fouled. Is that player shooting, passing, or just holding onto the ball. We have to make a judgement about what they were attempting to do since we'll either be putting them on the line or not. Sometimes it is obvoius, sometimes it is not....we have to read thier mind.
• With a kick ball, was it intentional or not? We have to make a judgement about what the player was attempting to get it right. Sure, you might be able to see it at a kick even if it was not intentional but look a little like it could be, but still, you have to know the player's intent.

How often does a player slap at the ball unintentionally?;)

I've looked at this video over and over (as shown on You Tube...is there another way to download it and go frame-by-frame?). I just don't see that the player had stopped moving forward at the time the contact started. He was facing but it appeared he was just getting both feet down at the time of contact. I see the body as still shifting forward over the feet at the time of contact.

If you can show me a better way to watch the video, I'd be willing to revise my opinion if I see different.

??? I'm just commenting on the assertion by Jurrassic about mind reading in general....not specifically a slap at the ball.

Translation: I do not have an answer for his question, so I have to make it seem like I am ignoring him even though I purposely used your reference for this response.

Peace

I know, I was adding to your list.

Let's see I went back to the thread from the other day, I never saw your question until just now.

Second, I find it funny that someone who goes out of his way to down play working a final, which is an accomplishment every HS official looks forward to doing one day, very telling.

My take, and the answer to your question, is that you want to hide behind the numbers/experience excuse. That's easier than admitting that maybe, just maybe, you aren't as good as you think you are.

Something to munch on.
 

"If you were to ask an official and a coach how important an official was to a football game, responses would be light years apart, but in reality, an official is probably twice as important as a coach thinks he is, but only half as important as he thinks he is." - Neil Payne

Maybe it works for ability too. :D

That's what I saw too, and I only watched it once. I think even if the dark-jerseyes player had control, that the defender didn't get legal guarding position -- it appeared to me that he violated the offensive player's vertical space.

Um, Camron, that was <b>my</b> point if you go back and read my responses. See my post #27. See your post #25. Aren't we basically saying the exact same thing?

What am I missing?:confused:

Time to exorcise the devil (Old School) from Bob.

MTD, Sr.

I am joining the thread late, but I have watched this play in real time at least twenty times (everytime in real time, not slow motion), and I would call this a charge. I first time I watched this video I did not make a decision because I wanted to see where the foul was so that I could then attempt the watch the place is if I were officiating the game.

Now before I go any further, I will admit that this play is the classic example of a bang-bang play. I do not think that I could critize an official for calling this a block.

I think this was a charge whether B32 had control of the ball or did not have control of the ball at the time of contact. I agree that when obtaining a legal guarding position against a player who does not have control of the ball, that time and distance is a factor. But remember the speed of the offensive player determines the time and distance that the defender must give. It was my judgement that B32 was not moving at the moment that W11 obtained a legal guarding position, therefore, W11 could be as close to B32 as possible short of contact when he obtained a legal guarding position against B32.

Once again, this is a judgement call and it was a very very close play.

MTD, Sr.

:)

Well stated, MTD, and similar to what I wrote back in post #3.

Block all the way
 

If you look at the video and see where the contact occurs, it is clearly a block. Another thing to look at is the legs of the defender, they are outside of shoulder width. Just my 2 cents.

We did. Some of disagree.

And....?

What difference would that make when the contact wasn't <b>on</b> the defender's legs?:confused:

I was looking at his position and it "looked" like his legs were bowed out. But, pure judgement on my behalf. So lets just take it for what is worth.....peace.

Do you know why it don't matter where the legs were if the contact is on the torso?

Of course, I am not a first year official.:cool:

From you statements, it sure didn't come across like you knew.

Hmmm, I think you all are reading too much into what I said. I was just making other observations about the defender. Sorry to peak everyone's interest in my post.

I can accept that.

No, i read it just as it was posted. Why talk about the defender's position and where the contact occured causing it to be a block and follow it with a comment on the legs being stuck out if you're not talking about the legs being related to the call? :confused:

Sorry to bring this thread back to page 1.

I had a block.

I never understand why teams don't put players in the lane to rebound. White IMO should have done this.

My main reason for posting is I just wanted to see if anyone noticed the fan to the right on the video wanting a travel. He was pretty emphatic about.

Now that would have been the safest call to make! :D

Well...since we are bringing this post back to life...and it is a slow Friday at work...let us examine a couple of other things on this video.

BTW...Boiler...nice spot on the fan gesturing travel.

A couple observations on the "bald" official...

* It looks like he hustles well. (Got the ball while his partner gave foul signals to the table...hopefully 3rd official was observing players)

* It looks like he could SLOW down just a bit....take a deep breath before he administers the FT's to the White team. (Looked like there could have been a FT violation on the first FT, on a miss...opponent coming in late to the lane...and even on the second FT the official was almost throwing the ball to the FT shooter before his teammate was in his spot) TAKE YOUR TIME!

* At the conclusion of the game...the bald dude turned his tail and ran. I know some officials like to run for the exits at the end of a game...but, I like to at least wait for my partners and go off together. A brisk walk or jog to the exits is cool..but, at least turn around and look to see if your partner is making it away from the mayhem. If the official, that made the "controversial" call, had been attacked...I'm not sure his partners would have seen it to help or make a report about it.

Very easily explained, Dude-y. Bald officials get dehydrated much quicker than officials with hair. It is a scientific fact that moisture is lost at a much faster rate through the top of a bald person's head than it does for us foliated officials. It's similar, science-wise, to global warming because caused partially by the loss of rain forests. This means that there is a much greater medical urgency for officials with wide parts like the one in the film to re-hydrate themselves as soon as possible at the end of games. To do so, they use an approved procedure known as <b>"Brownpop Therapy"</b>.

That is why Dan_Ref for instance looks like a cross between Speedy Gonzalez and the RoadRunner at the end of a game.

It's true, it's true........

Thank-you, JR, for that enlightening and wonderfully articulated explanation of rain forests...or was it less foliated, wide body officials...either way, it was pithy.:)

Pithy? I think not. JR is either congenial, or full-on abbrasive. I've never known him to be just pithy.

BTW, it's a real shame about that lithp. Have you seen anyone about it?

:D

...........:D