I think a common rookie mistake is to think that with just 2 opponents in the back court nothing bad can happen, so just do your count and move up the floor. I think this partly because I have made this mistake.

Watch the players.

I agree with others to say that there is nothing about what I saw that I can say what should have been called. We do not see enough of this play to decide. We see the end result and a player going down does not mean a foul occurred. If anything the reaction was delayed and I have seen players try to fake an official into a foul call based on how they react. There may have been a foul, but this video does nothing for me based on what I see.

Peace

I agree with the backcourt comment, tough to see anything.

But after that you can tell tensions are raised a bit and you've got a player laying in the backcourt (advantage A), the tone of the game has changed. This is an important next few seconds.

There is significant body contact on the dribble as A lowers the shoulder and B blocks, both players bounce off eachother. At this point, if I miss the block call, I'm now ready to stop the game with a whistle as soon as B fouls or A pulls the ball back out. B has the right to foul to end A's advantage and that's what it looks like B is trying to do on the first pass. By not calling that you are inviting a harder subsequent foul and basically asking for trouble.

My opinion.

I think it would be interesting to see film of how the officials handled the rest of the game.

Are you so sure?



Let me ask a few questions:

1. Did B obtain initial LGP?
2. Was B moving laterally or obliquely away from A at the time of contact?
3. It is necessary for B to remain facing A after LGP is obtained?
4. Did A get head/shoulders by B?

Are you so sure this is a block? If so, exactly what did B do wrong?

Note that tomegun never said a block was missed....the "foul" he referred to involved a "forearm"....or illegal use of hands, not a block. And it very well could be that...I just can not confirm so from this video.

Agree. There is too little information to judge whether a foul occurred in back court and who committed it if there was. The dribbler's body language screams out frustration, to me anyway. That seems like a, "Get off me!" kind of reaction. But without seeing the whole play, that doesn't really tell me anything useful.

Amended to add: In stopping, starting, rewinding this several times, I happened to stop at a moment that shows the defender positioned to the side of the ball-handler, her left hand on the ball, and her left arm coming across the ball handler's body. Combine that with the fact that the defender is coming at her quickly from the front and overruns her a little (see below), and it begins to look like the defender was trying to make a play on the ball, arrived late, was out of control, had her hand on the ball but was *probably* making significant contact on the ball handler's arm, maybe the whole left side of her body. That would easily account for a "get off me" reaction by the ball handler.

It appears the T got straight lined on that play because of how the defender moved into the play. The video quality isn't great, but as the play is just coming into view, the defender is an orange blur that appears to start out ahead of the dribbler but be in motion to the spot beside and just behind her when she finally comes into focus. The T would have had an open look just prior to that and would have had no time to adjust before whatever happened happened. If I'm right about the defender arriving late, and overrunning the play, well...I wouldn't have anticipated that. I would expect the defender to stay in the dribbler's path. The T would have had an open look at that.

I'm not saying I would call it a block but if anything, yes, it's a block. I would argue that B lost her LGP when she turned to run next to A and that B is moving into A (in a "reach in" type fashion) causing the contact. If it's not a foul, it's at least a red flag and a sign of things to come.

BUT even if you decide to pass on it (which I could see), my point was that the foul on the pass was the one you NEED to get. We can see the defender come up with hands extended out and high and there is clear contact on the torso and even up near the face. A shows some frustration and it is clear things need to be reigned in.

A few things:

I would like to apologize for not stating things correctly; I was working off memory because I had not seen the video in a while when I started this thread on Sunday.

1. It wasn't a forearm but was certainly a block. If others don't think so that is another opinion. The reason this play was selected was because the instructional chair, and my friend, thought there should have been 4 fouls called.
2. My opinion is the video is good enough to make some determination.
3. The first contact is a foul. I too had a question about the contact the defender could have made. But, the offensive player extended her arm and the player went down, delay and all. We can either question a play like this or explain it to the coach like this official did. She either got hit or deserves an oscar. Either way, I'm putting air in the whistle one way or the other - depending on what the defender did. Someone also comment (I think) about the T being straight-lined. Not a good enough reason to not have something.
4. This play escalates and that is why the contact was pointed out. Even though the pass was successful there was contact (the 3rd foul). Something should have been called on all three occasions before the fourth foul and these officials were in position to do so.


I know the thing about "well in my area..." so I will say this: these would be fouls in Southern Nevada...and the DC/Maryland area...and Mississippi.

I'm about to post the end of this game in another thread.

Things needed to be reigned in before the pass. The fact that you say things need to be reigned in tells me that you think something should have been called before the pass.

That was me. I agree, there should have been a call here. I was just thinking out loud in my post as I played the video back and forth and noticed more and more detail.

No problem BITS. Talking out loud and learning, so to speak, is what this exercise is all about.

Oh, something else that came up Sunday. Someone said the play should have been killed immediately when the player went down. Others continued by saying it should have been stopped by rule, regardless of who had the ball, what was happening with the ball, etc.

I could find this in the rule book; they said it was changed two years ago. When I looked and told an official I couldn't find it he told me it was a state policy. I then said the policy letter should be printed and distributed because this could be a test question. Then he said he wasn't sure it it was a policy or a suggestion. At this point I was getting tired of the changing story so I will ask here: am I missing something in the rule book? I would want to know what rule covers stopping this play because I was only able to find things about bleeding, unconscious player. If the injured player was right in the middle of the action of course the play should be stopped, but that wasn't the case in this play.

When a player is injured as in Art. 2(a), the official may suspend play after the ball is dead or is in control of the injured player’s team or when the opponents complete a play. A play is completed when a team loses control (including throwing for goal) or withholds the ball from play by ceasing to attempt to score or advance the ball to a scoring position. When necessary to protect an injured player, the official may immediately suspend play. NFHS 5-8-2 Note

That is the same thing I found, but officials at the meeting were saying something was put into the rules two years ago that says play will be stopped immediately regardless of the rule above.

Nothing like that was added to my rule book. Perhaps "officials at the meeting" could provide a reference? ;)

I doubt they can, but you better believe I will bring it up this Sunday.