Hack or hit, but not block IMHO

[Jim Dixon]

eReferee wrote this in response to the first video clip shown:

"Jason Pointer calls a foul in the Brookeland-Moulton 1A Championship Game. (1.2MB)

The key to working this play is all about positioning. The new Trail (coming up the floor) must remain approximately 6 feet and to the left of this play, allowing him an excellent angle. The defensive player (Black #25) commits two types of fouls: blocking and hand checking. Without the hand check, though, the blocking foul must be called. Rule of thumb: A player does not normally trip over his own feet. Although contact might be minimal, it's best to call a blocking foul when an offensive player goes to the floor."

My Comment:

IMHO, this foul is only possible if described as a “hit”, “hack”, or “illegal use of the hands”. It is definitely NOT a hand-checking foul, and is a very weak example of a block, since the defender (#25) was set with his feet.

Therefore, the offensive player (#23) is required to go around #25 and avoid his feet and not trip over them. It is the allegedly tripping action [obviously seen upon repeated replay and study—not instantaneous judgment as demanded of all of us when we call a game, so apologies to Jason Pointer] which is responsible for #23 going to the floor, and that is the responsibility of #23 to avoid. I do not think that a foul should be attributed to #25 for that. Rather, #25 reached out and made hand contact, and that is the foul that should be called.

Finally, I cannot disagree with the final comment by ereferee. If an offensive player goes to the floor, a foul is usually necessary. Sometimes, though, you may let them play through it IF THEY CAN.

Comments??

Jim Dixon