What do you have???

[canuckrefguy]

I'm going to vehemently but respectfully disagree with those of you who felt there was "absolutely no collision". That shooter did not wind up landing flat on his stomach on his own.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

I'm going to vehemently but respectfully disagree with those of you who felt there was "absolutely no collision". That shooter did not wind up landing flat on his stomach on his own.

There might have been some contact, but collision is a bit much. And that is why some people's judgment is considered good and other are considered bad. Someone is going to think you or I are wrong. I can live with my judgment on this.

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

I'm going to vehemently but respectfully disagree with those of you who felt there was "absolutely no collision". That shooter did not wind up landing flat on his stomach on his own.

I'm TOTALLY with you on this. The defender clearly DID NOT STOP and establish guarding position and disrupted the balance of the shooter. Think RSBQ. No supervisor will ever question calling a blocking foul, but a no call or PC?? Hmmmmmm.......

[Adam]

He doesn't have to stop to establish or maintain LGP. Doesn't have to be set, and doesn't have to stop.

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He doesn't have to stop to establish or maintain LGP. Doesn't have to be set, and doesn't have to stop.

The rule book doesn't say the defender must STOP. However, it states this:

NCAA 4.35. A4 - Guarding: to establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball,
b.The guard's torso shall face the opponent
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court

The position of the defender and the nature of the contact caused him to fall to his right (the left from our view) and the shooter to fall to his right (the rightside of the screen). The defender isn't in legal guarding position because his torso did not face the opponent (his left shoulder was the first part of the body hit by the airborne shooter). If the defender gets hit in the chest, then I'll go with the PC. But he got hit on the shoulder so I have a block. In addition, it looks as the shooter is already airborne before the defender got there on time. Based on that, I have another reason to call a block.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

The rule book doesn't say the defender must STOP. However, it states this:

NCAA 4.35. A4 - Guarding: to establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball,
b.The guard's torso shall face the opponent
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court

The position of the defender and the nature of the contact caused him to fall to his right (the left from our view) and the shooter to fall to his right (the rightside of the screen). The defender isn't in legal guarding position because his torso did not face the opponent (his left shoulder was the first part of the body hit by the airborne shooter). If the defender gets hit in the chest, then I'll go with the PC. But he got hit on the shoulder so I have a block. In addition, it looks as the shooter is already airborne before the defender got there on time. Based on that, I have another reason to call a block.

For the record, the NF took out the reference to the "chest" as apart of requiring a PC Foul if the defender was hit in the chest. Even your rule reference does not show that (and you will not find it there in other references or interpretations). They did that about 5 years ago with an editorial change. And all that is required is the defender face the ball handler at one time, the rule does not suggest that he stay that way. And the defender was clearly facing the defender at one time.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

The rule book doesn't say the defender must STOP. However, it states this:

NCAA 4.35. A4 - Guarding: to establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball,
b.The guard's torso shall face the opponent
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court

The position of the defender and the nature of the contact caused him to fall to his right (the left from our view) and the shooter to fall to his right (the rightside of the screen). The defender isn't in legal guarding position because his torso did not face the opponent (his left shoulder was the first part of the body hit by the airborne shooter). If the defender gets hit in the chest, then I'll go with the PC. But he got hit on the shoulder so I have a block. In addition, it looks as the shooter is already airborne before the defender got there on time. Based on that, I have another reason to call a block.

To add to Rut's point about the chest reference being removed; it's only a rule of thumb. 1. Defender had his torso facing, with two feet down, just barely in time; in my opinion. The official's head (and the video quality) prevent us from knowing for sure. 2. The shooter then attempts to jump to his right to get the shot off and avoid the charge call; losing his balance in the process.

3. You note that the defender falls to his right, I noticed that, too. His right is the wrong direction based on where the shooter falls. To me, it's an ovious flop that prevents him from drawing a charge call. This is the only thing the defender does wrong, IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

3. You note that the defender falls to his right, I noticed that, too. His right is the wrong direction based on where the shooter falls. To me, it's an ovious flop that prevents him from drawing a charge call. This is the only thing the defender does wrong, IMO.

Take two billiard balls and have them hit such that the impact is substantially off center in the same manner the two players came together. Their direction after impact will cause them to split....one to the right, one to the left. The shooter has the most momentum so he continued more forward than to the side but was still deflected to the right. The slower moving object (defender) will be deflected mostly to the left...and little to the back.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Take two billiard balls and have them hit such that the impact is substantially off center in the same manner the two players came together. Their direction after impact will cause them to split....one to the right, one to the left. The shooter has the most momentum so he continued more forward than to the side but was still deflected to the right. The slower moving object (defender) will be deflected mostly to the left...and little to the back.

Camron, human beings aren't billiard balls. If the defender was drifting to his left, and the shooter drifting to his right (not really disputed here), the defender would have fallen in roughly the same direction as the shooter due to his own momentum.

Seriously, when's the last time you saw two roughly equally sized opponents hit each other and react like an eight-ball off the queue?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You note that the defender falls to his right, I noticed that, too. His right is the wrong direction based on where the shooter falls. To me, it's an ovious flop that prevents him from drawing a charge call. This is the only thing the defender does wrong, IMO.

Which is exactly why I agree...based on 2 seconds of crappy video and bad angle....the correct call was made.

By the free throw line extended B1 was far enough ahead that A1 was anticipating a train wreck, which is why he fell so awkwardly when B1 flopped.