Looks like substantial contact was made.

<a href="http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/?action=view&current=ref1r.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/ref1r.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Simply put, if you've had 3 of these very close plays (99% the same situation, same timing, same contact) and all were called as a block against green and then when the same thing happens at the other end of the court, it better be a block on white.

I just don't see how there could not be contact. Shooter when up vertical and came down horizontal. People just don't start rotating in mid-air without some external impetus...and doubt there was that much wind in the place.

Can put much stock in that...we've established that he was way out of position and was running full speed at the same time trying to make up for being flatfooted at the other end of the court.

Firewalls here prevent his picture from coming through. That said, I saw the video this morning, and video generally provides a better view of contact than a still shot.

There are examples of when "substantial contact" can and should be ruled incidental.

A1 (point guard) drives into the paint towards B5. A1 attempt to pull up short, but ends up hitting B5. Contact is sufficient to stop A1 cold in his tracks and he falls to the floor. B5 doesn't so much as flinch from the contact. It's a no-call on the contact, and a possible travel.

In the video, I can't have a block because it looks to me like the defense is in position. I can't have a PC because the defender was falling backwards by his own power; the offense didn't cause it. Everytime I've no-called a flop (well, most times) at this level (this looks like varsity), the coach yelled at his player for bailing out on the play.

Which player do you believe is responsible for that contact?
The defender who is crumpling backward and away or the offensive player who is jumping towards and into the defender?

At this point in the video (your still frame capture) the question of whether the defender arrived at his spot in time or late has to have already been answered. If you could say for sure that defender was late in obtaining his position, then this photo could justify a block call, but without that critical bit of information it seems more proper to penalize the offensive player from what is depicted in this frame.

Why are you responding to my question with something completely inappropriate? You state, "the same thing happens at the other end of the court..." I specifically asked about using the suggested philosophy of btaylor for a similar play AT THE SAME END of the court.

I want to know if part of his concept of recalling the previous close decision includes predetermining that the next close play ON THE SAME END also has to be called the same and thus go against the same team. Or perhaps he has the opposite idea and if the next close play happens on the same end his concept mandates that the official send it the other way.

I don't know what his position is, so I'm trying to find out.

I know what you said, I was reframing the situation to make a point. But just the same, if the same play (as I characterized it above) is a block 3 times on one end of the court, it should not turn into a charge the 4th time....even if they're all on the same end. I just reversed it to the other end of the court to amplify the inflammatory nature of being inconsistent.

If it happens multiple times, it's not the same play.


The call may or may not be the same.

What? That makes no sense at all. By definition, if the exact same thing happens multiple times, it is the same play. And yes, the call should be the same every time....becasue if it is no different, there is no reason to call it different.

The point is that plays are like snowflakes. No two are exactly alike. Therefore they must be judged individually. The last call has no bearing on the next call.

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul. Could you please reference some plays in which the defense is penalized even when the defender is completely legal in which the pros penalize the defender? I just need something to go off of b/c whereas i didn't know about the college rules you don't know about the pro game. Do you know the reasoning behind why the NCAA wants either blocks or charges on close plays called or do they say? We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block. The reasoning: we want players to keep attacking the basket and not be afraid so that the game ends up turning into a pull up jump shot fest. If i was given a legitimate reason why a league or a conference wants something a certain way, ok I'm fine with that but just to tell me to do it a certain way with no explanation, especially when my gut tells me its wrong, I have a problem with that. You're right I am still calling this a block. I am not going to reference the, "you shouldn't be on a college floor then" remark. I've worked my butt off to be there. I attempt to do what my CC says for the night and go on about my business. If he tells me I missed a play and gives me the reason why, I attempt to correct it if I have the play again.

2. I never said if a player slung himself into an opponent I would give him a foul if he went down and was hurt. I stated that there was sufficient enough contact to warrant a whistle and also the fact that he goes down hurt even more makes me have a foul on the play. Onus is on the defender to be legal! if he is not legal the only way i can absolve him from having a foul is if the offensive player does something overt such as lead with a knee or foot, in this case he doesn't do either. Yes the play in question has minimal contact, or at least so it seems, but it is enough that it takes the offensive players hips and legs out from underneath him causing him to not be able to return the floor in a normal position. We cannot choose to ignore illegal contact. Players have to decide outcomes of games through LEGAL actions, not illegal ones which we choose to ignore. if 2 players are on the floor on a drive to the basket 9/10 times someone has committed an illegal act and on that 1/10 times then you have 2 floppers on your hands and you better watch both of them the rest of the night.

3. Ok to make it clear for everyone on the forum I no longer referee NFHS. So my claim on this play is germaine to both leagues.

Also, just to note: If an offensive player was expecting contact and got none, while in the air, and he still wants to fall to the floor to simulate that something happened or he got fouled, he way more often than not is landing with a foot first to soften the blow and in this case he does not as he has no control once he got hip checked.

Gee, from the NBA games that I've seen, I coulda sworn that they went with the stars. If Kobe or LeBron was the shooter, it's a block. If Kobe or LeBron was the defender though, then it's a charge. The officials are really consistent that way. :)

I'll start to care about how the pros call a game when the pros actually start following their own rule book. Methinks that the same people training the Harlem Globetrotter officials are also training the NBA officials. Watching the LeBrons and Kobes of the world take 5-step layups over and over and over is absolutely ridiculous.

I see a blurry picture where I cannot see for sure contact or not contact. And really that was the point. You cannot tell much by the picture and if this was my look as an official, then I would be at best guessing.

Peace

If you've got to look that close to tell them apart, they're the same. We don't need to seperate the snowflakes from each other....just from the sleet, hail, rain, meteorites, and dead birds.

Agreed. This picture is worthless in determining wether there was contact and how much. From the video, you can see the defender flop. This picture doesn't discredit that thought at all.