What do you have???

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It does not look obvious to me because he fell like a bag of bricks. And considering I have seen that play for real, and the defender never moved (his feet were basically in the same place, which is a clear sign he flopped), there might have been some contact, but not contact that caused the shooter to fall.

Peace

Looks like substantial contact was made.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What if both close plays occur on the same end of the court? Should the officials call both plays the same so that both close decisions go against the same team?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it is clear there was actually any contact with the defender by the shooter. It looks very possible that the shooter was preparing for contact and just fell.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

After all there was no call by the official and we cannot see if there was much contact if any.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not clearly see the shooter bounce off the defender. I saw a shooter just fall to the floor.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Looks like substantial contact was made.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Looks like substantial contact was made.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

if the same play is a block 3 times on one end of the court, it should not turn into a charge the 4th time...

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


The call may or may not be the same.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the problem with you working other levels of basketball. You admit that you have only learned a pro philosophy so that is the only way in which you can view plays. Unfortunately, that means that you are getting a number of calls wrong when working at the NCAA or NFHS levels, if you continue to do so. I would ask you to please cease working those levels of play and just focus on the pro games if that is your goal. Those of us who work those games don't need you making incorrect decisions based upon rules and principles from another level of play. It only makes our lives harder and counters all that we do towards educating the fans, coaches, and players at those levels.

I put three specific comments of yours in RED above which are incorrect in either an NCAA or NFHS game.

1. You now know that and openly admit that you judge block/charge by the start of upward movement of the offensive player while the NCAA and NFHS standard is when both feet of the offensive player have left the floor. You say that you would have a block by the favor-the-offense pro-philosophy, but then you actually admit that since you now know the correct criterion for NCAA and NFHS this play could only be considered a charge. So what would you actually call during an NCAA game? If your answer is block for the reason previously stated, then you have no business on a college floor. Unfortunately, the pro game has destroyed the balance between the offense and defense and that makes it far less appealing to watch. Clearly the NBA brass believes that offense sells tickets, but there are many fans that appreciate defense and the pro game consistently over-penalizes and screws the defense.

2. An offensive player tries to jump over and around a defender by flinging his body at an awkward angle and you are going to give him a call because he "goes down really hard and is hurt". Are you serious??? That's an incredibly immature comment. All that it shows is that the official isn't courageous enough to stand the heat of making the proper decision and would rather take the easy way out. Please show me in the rules where injury is the standard by which to judge a foul.

3. For the GT decision whether the ball has struck the board or not means absolutely nothing at the NFHS level and didn't matter for NCAA either until last year. That was a recent change in the college game. Thanks for letting us know your pro view of this play, but please make it clear for other officials reading this forum that you are employing those criteria and not the NFHS rules.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

.... if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Looks like substantial contact was made.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.