What is your call ?

[hoosierref]

Sounds like it was one of those you had to see to call. To me it sounds like the right call with defensive player jumping straight up. Did A1 go straight into him or just to the side making contact???

[Nevadaref]

The guard may legally jump. He may legally turn or duck, but he must remain within his vertical plane. If he didn't by sticking out his forearm, then his action was illegal.

[dave30]

The offensive player went straight into the defender.

The only part where I question myself is whether or not the raising of the forearm to brace for a collision (and then the offensive player's face crashed into it) is enough to justify calling it a block on the defense.

In my mind, I have no doubt the offensive player's ONLY intention was to create contact and crash into the defender.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by dave30

In my mind, I have no doubt the offensive player's ONLY intention was to create contact and crash into the defender.

I've had several Rec players with this same attitude and demeanor and they never understand why I call the offensive foul.....probably, because none of the other Refs do....

[Camron Rust]

[quote=Nevadaref]The guard may legally jump. He may legally turn or duck, but he must remain within his vertical plane. If he didn't by sticking out his forearm, then his action was illegal.[/quote]

Neveda, I'm so disapointed.

Using your arms to soften an impending collision doesn't make it a block.

[dave30]

I do think the forearm was only to protect himself and it wasn't his fault that the offensive player's face hit them so I guess I made the right call. Thanks for the confirmation!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The guard may legally jump. He may legally turn or duck, but he must remain within his vertical plane. If he didn't by sticking out his forearm, then his action was illegal.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Neveda, I'm so disapointed.

Using your arms to soften an impending collision doesn't make it a block.

Where did I write that this was a block? I'm so disappointed. Think NFHS signal #29.

Originally Posted by justacoach

With all due deference, does 4-24-3 strike a familiar note?

With all due deference, does 4-24-6 strike a familiar note?
...It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs. The extension of the elbows when the hands are on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held more or less horizontally are examples of illegal positions used.

I only wrote a short reply earlier. In my opinion, JR explained it in better detail. Depending upon what the defender did with his arm, which the OP only described as "sticks out his forearm," this call could go either way.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Straight judgment call imo. It depends on what you think the defender is doing with his forearms. If the forearms are just there....passive.....and the offensive player initiates contact on what would have been the defender's torso except for the forearms, I'd have a charge in that case. That's why this one is a htbt call, as you said above. Can't really tell without seeing it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Where did I write that this was a block? I'm so disappointed. Think NFHS signal #29.

Block, push, whatever. Sticking the arms forward to soften a crash is not a foul.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

With all due deference, does 4-24-6 strike a familiar note?
...It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs. The extension of the elbows when the hands are on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held more or less horizontally are examples of illegal positions used.

You've missed the whole point. This is talking about the player making themselves wider by extending their arms/elbows outside their frame. Sticking them out in from to shield a collision is NOT what this is talking about. Remember that the opponent was already committed and the extension of the arm is not hindering the opponents freedom of movement....they're already committed and a crash is imminent.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I only wrote a short reply earlier. In my opinion, JR explained it in better detail. Depending upon what the defender did with his arm, which the OP only described as "sticks out his forearm," this call could go either way.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The guard may legally jump. He may legally turn or duck, but he must remain within his vertical plane. If he didn't by sticking out his forearm, then his action was illegal.

With all due deference, does 4-24-3 strike a familiar note?