Blarge alert!!!

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-45-6: A defender may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a foul.

Sounds a lot like a description of this play to me.

I guess we're seeing different plays. The defender doesn't belly up at all - but rather leans backwards. Those are different things.

[rockyroad]

"Bellying up" and leaning backwards to avoid taking a shot in the face are two entirely differnt things and in no way should be used to judge whether a collision is a block or a PC foul. There is no restriction on leaning backwards when one is about to get run over.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

There is no restriction on leaning backwards when one is about to get run over.

True if he had been there waiting for the contact. That was not the case here.
A position on the court reaches from floor to ceiling. At contact of this play, I do not see that this defender had established a spot in the path of the dribbler.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True if he had been there waiting for the contact. That was not the case here.
A position on the court reaches from floor to ceiling. At contact of this play, I do not see that this defender had established a spot in the path of the dribbler.

That would be why pretty much everyone on this topic has said it was a block. Not because the defender was leaning back, but because he wasn't there in time.

The C called a PC (in my opinion) because this was a secondary defender jumping in there and the C didn't get a good look at the whole thing...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

That would be why pretty much everyone on this topic has said it was a block. Not because the defender was leaning back, but because he wasn't there in time.

Agreed. I'm saying that leaning back is an attempt to distort the appearance of getting there in time. Someone earlier objected to the use of this description, but, yes, he "slid under him" to some degree.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. I'm saying that leaning back is an attempt to distort the appearance of getting there in time. Someone earlier objected to the use of this description, but, yes, he "slid under him" to some degree.

I like "slid under" better than "leaning back"...one is not legal, and one is.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I like "slid under" better than "leaning back"...one is not legal, and one is.

I would say one is a part of the other. The defender leans back in order to slide under.