So another one of those block/charge calls

[APG]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

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.

[JugglingReferee]

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.....

[mick]

What Rut said.

[bob jenkins]

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

[zebraman]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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

That's the two main reasons to make any call.

[lrpalmer3]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by lrpalmer3

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

That's the two main reasons to make any call.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

If you need me for anything further, I'll be right over here.....

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

Nice haircut.