What do you have???

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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..... 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.

Actually Ben the rest of your quote does in fact support the premise that the NBA has a "favor-the-offense" philosophy. But I already surmised that based upon a debate I had with one of your colleagues.

And based on my camp experiences, especially this summer, it seems the college philosophy is opposite--the observers I worked in front of seemed to want those 50/50 block/charge plays to go against the offense.

[mu4scott]

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points.

I’ll start w/ frame 2 and use frame 1 as just a starting off point.

Frame 2:

I think it’s pretty clear the offensive player is gathering himself to go up for the shot and is moving towards the basket. In my estimation he is taking one final step (left foot) and then going up. Note the defensive position of the player in green. His right shoulder from this angle is in line w/ the edge of the bleachers.

Frame 3:

The offensive player has started his ascension towards the basket. I believe he has planted off his left foot and his right foot is off the ground due to his knee being bent and it’s above his left leg. The defensive player has clearly changed his floor position and has moved towards the baseline.

Frame 4:

The offensive player looks to have both feet off the ground or very close to doing so. The ball is clearly above his head and he appears to be moving towards the basket. The defensive position of green has moved again in this frame. He has continued to move into the path of the shooter.

Frame 5:

This is the last frame before the offensive player releases the ball. If a person was not sure in frame 4 if the player had both feet off the ground then it’s very clear that is the case now. The defender continues to move his position on the floor. His body has moved further into the path of the now airborne shooter. I believe this is where the first contact occurs.

Frame 6:

Offensive player has released the ball and his body has distinctively different positioning. His feet are now starting to become parallel with the rest of his body. It appears this has happened because his waist has come in contact with the players left shoulder and head.



Blocking foul on green and two shots for white.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points...

The fact that this play has to be broken down frame-by-frame only reinforces that it was a call that could go either way.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The fact that this play has to be broken down frame-by-frame only reinforces that it was a call that could go either way.

Exactly right. So what happens if we have another play later in the game that's so close it has to broken down frame-by-frame? It could go either way. So. . . It better be the same call as whatever is made on this play, regardless of which end of the court it happens on.

[mu4scott]

I guess my main point is that a whistle has to be blown on this. I don't think you can pass on it.

[Adam]

And I think, from what I saw on the video (not frame by frame), a no-call is acceptable.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And I think, from what I saw on the video (not frame by frame), a no-call is acceptable.

I don’t care for the term “acceptable” in this situation. Too much grey area in that. If there is contact (which I obviously think there was) then there needs to be a whistle one way or the other.

We are not going to agree on this and that’s fine, but answer me this.

With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game? What if that player had been seriously injured and flipped even further and landed on his head, instead of his elbow?

With an airborne shooter and there is contact I have a whistle. Better to err on the side of caution in my opinion.

[Adam]

Okay, reviewing the frame by frame, the angle and distance prevent any positive statements, IMO. It's too far, the camera is straightlined, and the film is too grainy. Obviously, Dad taking the video thinks otherwise; thus the video making it to youtube.

The defensive players movement between frames 4 and 5 can easily be explained if you think contact occured between the frames as well. But you really can't tell for sure when contact occurred. I think B1 starts his flop here, also explaining the change in position relative to the all important pole on the wall.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, reviewing the frame by frame, the angle and distance prevent any positive statements, IMO. It's too far, the camera is straightlined, and the film is too grainy. Obviously, Dad taking the video thinks otherwise; thus the video making it to youtube.

I'll agree you can't necessarily tell exactly when there was contact and you can't also tell anything about forward defensive movement, but you can determine when the shooter was airborne and lateral defensive movement after that time and that the movement is inconsistent with prior contact. And that is all we need to know. Lateral defensive movement is the one thing you can still see perfectly even when straightlined.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The defensive players movement between frames 4 and 5 can easily be explained if you think contact occured between the frames as well. But you really can't tell for sure when contact occurred. I think B1 starts his flop here, also explaining the change in position relative to the all important pole on the wall.

OK...let's assume contact started between 4 and 5.

The shooter's waist was even with the defender's waist in frame 3 (shoulder to shoulder too). In frame 4, the shooter waist is even with the defender's shoulder. While you can't see the shooter's feet, there is no other explanation than for the shooter to already be in the air before frame 4....just too much elevation to be anything else. Now, if the shooter had contacted the defender prior to frame 5, it would have caused the defender to be knocked towards the basket but he wasn't...so there was no contact before frame 5.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'll agree you can't necessarily tell exactly when there was contact and you can't also tell anything about forward defensive movement, but you can determine when the shooter was airborne and lateral defensive movement after that time and that the movement is inconsistent with prior contact. And that is all we need to know. Lateral defensive movement is the one thing you can still see perfectly even when straightlined.

On the court, yes; on grainy video, not necessarily.

Let me say this. If the defender was leaning to the side when contact was made; easy block. From the video, it's possible. I don't trust the camera, on this, though. To assume the player's position in relation to the fixed point means he moved assumes the camera didn't move. Even a change in the angle of the shot would move the fixed point in relation to the player. This video is inconclusive, IMO.

Originally Posted by Camron

OK...let's assume contact started between 4 and 5.

The shooter's waist was even with the defender's waist in frame 3 (shoulder to shoulder too). In frame 4, the shooter waist is even with the defender's shoulder. While you can't see the shooter's feet, there is no other explanation than for the shooter to already be in the air before frame 4....just too much elevation to be anything else. Now, if the shooter had contacted the defender prior to frame 5, it would have caused the defender to be knocked towards the basket but he wasn't...so there was no contact before frame 5.

You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.

I still fall back on my earlier stance. If we have to break this down frame-by-frame, even if we all agreed on the correct call, the other call is completely understandable in real time on the run.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To assume the player's position in relation to the fixed point means he moved assumes the camera didn't move. Even a change in the angle of the shot would move the fixed point in relation to the player. This video is inconclusive, IMO.

Given the relative distances involved, the camera would have moved several feet between frames in order to give a impression of movement of a small amount....the camera man would need to be at a full sprint in the bleachers running towards the backcourt while holding a camera over his shoulder to move that much in 1/30 of a second. Additionally, other elements between the frames can be used to establish how stationary the camera was.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.
.

Agree. I've always agreed there was a flop.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still fall back on my earlier stance. If we have to break this down frame-by-frame, even if we all agreed on the correct call, the other call is completely understandable in real time on the run.

The other call being a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because the defender flopped out of what would have been a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because it was so close and hard to tell...that i can't agree on. And that is my main issue..some of the "no-calls" seem to be based on the closeness of the play....and that is not acceptable. I would simply have no issue with either call as long as a call was made on this one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The other call being a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because the defender flopped out of what would have been a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because it was so close and hard to tell...that i can't agree on.

We're in 99% agreement, then.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that is my main issue..some of the "no-calls" seem to be based on the closeness of the play....and that is not acceptable.

To me, it's close between a no-call (due to the flop) and a block. One call is right, the other is wrong; but both are understandable.

I haven't seen anyone say it's too close to call so just let it go. Maybe I missed it.