Block? Charge? No call?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

If you have a player with LGP and there is contact that displaces that defender you have a pc foul - and leaning back, turning to absorb contact, those are not things that cause it to NOT be a pc foul.

True,however, if the defender is leaning back and I don't believe the contact was enough to displace the defender had they not be leaning, then I've got a no call. This is what makes it a flop in my opinion. The players lean for a reason. The primary one being to get a PC called against the offense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

True,however, if the defender is leaning back and I don't believe the contact was enough to displace the defender had they not be leaning, then I've got a no call. This is what makes it a flop in my opinion. The players lean for a reason. The primary one being to get a PC called against the offense.

But leaning is allowed, and they're still entitled to the spot, so if he's leaning backwards and still gets displaced, it's still a foul.

Now, if he'd have fallen anyway due to his leaning, then there's likely no foul; whether it was a flop or just a poorly executed move to absorb the contact.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But leaning is allowed, and they're still entitled to the spot, so if he's leaning backwards and still gets displaced, it's still a foul.

Now, if he'd have fallen anyway due to his leaning, then there's likely no foul; whether it was a flop or just a poorly executed move to absorb the contact.

I agree by rule they are allowed to lean. However, if they lean and the contact is marginal, it's a flop and a no call. You have to ask yourself, what caused the displacement more? The lean or the contact. In the above video, I don't believe the contact was marginal. It was PC all the way. The defender would have been displaced even if he wasn't leaning.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I agree by rule they are allowed to lean. However, if they lean and the contact is marginal, it's a flop and a no call. You have to ask yourself, what caused the displacement more? The lean or the contact. In the above video, I don't believe the contact was marginal. It was PC all the way. The defender would have been displaced even if he wasn't leaning.

We're mostly in alignment, but I'm saying whether the lean contributed to the fall isn't relevant. To me, if the lean would have caused him to fall without contact, then the contact is incidental. If the contact contributed to the fall, however, then it's a foul even if the contact might not have caused him to fall if he wasn't leaning. Leaning is legal, so he shouldn't be punished (by allowing another player to knock him down) for doing it.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We're mostly in alignment, but I'm saying whether the lean contributed to the fall isn't relevant. To me, if the lean would have caused him to fall without contact, then the contact is incidental. If the contact contributed to the fall, however, then it's a foul even if the contact might not have caused him to fall if he wasn't leaning. Leaning is legal, so he shouldn't be punished (by allowing another player to knock him down) for doing it.

But contact is legal too. This is a contact sport. The only contact we penalize is the contact that causes displacement or provides an advantage or disadvantage. If the player is leaning and the contact is marginal, even though it may have contributed to it, I've got a no call. Otherwise, if the offensive player barely touches the chest of the defender while the player is falling back, I would have to call PC. I'm not going to do that. I doubt you will either. Also, I don't believe the rule book really uses the term lean, but it does say that the player can move and brace for the impact. There are better ways to brace for an impact than to lean. However, leaning is moving so it is allowed. But they lean to draw the foul. That is why we can call ( I haven't done it yet) a T for flopping. It's a HTBT and a judgment call. I don't believe either one of our positions is wrong nor are we that far apart on this. My thing is by leaning the defender is already placing themselves in a disadvantageous position. They are putting themselves in a position to be displaced by the slightest of contact to draw a foul. It has to be more than marginal for me to call a PC. It's one of those things that you know it when you see it or at least we should, if we are refereing the defense.

[IUgrad92]

Defender established LGP, I have a PC as well.

Had a D1 official talk at our association meeting the other night and went through a good number of block/charge college video clips and broke them down. The terminology that I really picked up on was "to or through", meaning did the offensive player go 'to' the defender or did he go 'through' the defender.

This particular video, the offensive player clearly goes through the defender. He also mentioned that if you have 2 players on the ground as a result from a drive to the basket, the crew better come out with something (block or charge). And if you have to come in with a late whistle, because no one else took it, so be it. And when in doubt, you give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt.

So it sounds like an emphasis at the college level. We have been emphasizing "having a call when both players go to the ground" in our area as well and is definitely a pre-game point of discussion.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Defender established LGP, I have a PC as well.

Had a D1 official talk at our association meeting the other night and went through a good number of block/charge college video clips and broke them down. The terminology that I really picked up on was "to or through", meaning did the offensive player go 'to' the defender or did he go 'through' the defender.

This particular video, the offensive player clearly goes through the defender. He also mentioned that if you have 2 players on the ground as a result from a drive to the basket, the crew better come out with something (block or charge). And if you have to come in with a late whistle, because no one else took it, so be it. And when in doubt, you give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt.

So it sounds like an emphasis at the college level. We have been emphasizing "having a call when both players go to the ground" in our area as well and is definitely a pre-game point of discussion.

I like this A LOT.

[Clark Kent]

I'm T (so pick him apart all you want....that's why I posted it was to get opinion and feedback) in this play.

I felt like he went through the defender and there was too much contact to pass on, so no call really wasn't an option.

My initial thought was that since it came out of my primary and on my side of the lane it was my call and was a bit surprised that my partner blew on this play, but after watching the video it was a secondary defender that slid over so it makes more sense to me now why he blew. We discussed it and I asked what he had before he dropped his arm and he said he was going with a block because he thought the kid had gotten there late.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So it sounds like an emphasis at the college level. We have been emphasizing "having a call when both players go to the ground" in our area as well and is definitely a pre-game point of discussion.

Interesting. This sounds like a good idea since this would fall under the "call the obvious" category.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Interesting. This sounds like a good idea since this would fall under the "call the obvious" category.

But not as "obvious" as one would think. I believe there is at least one veteran official and contributor on here that believe a 'no call' would be best on this play. And I doubt he's the only one with that philosophy.

Hence, why it is a good topic for pre-game, unless you are working with partners that you've worked with previously and know their philosophy.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by rwest

True,however, if the defender is leaning back and I don't believe the contact was enough to displace the defender had they not be leaning, then I've got a no call. This is what makes it a flop in my opinion. The players lean for a reason. The primary one being to get a PC called against the offense.

They also lean b/c some of them are scared of contact, but that doesn't mean they can't take a pc foul. The judgement as you said is whether or not the contact was enough to displace, but the lean on its own does not rule out the pc, that's all I am saying.

[Rich]

He really wasn't leaning *that* much.

My opinion:

It's a PC foul. The defender established LGP well before the shooter was airborne. Mitigating contact with a small lean is different than flopping. He didn't start to the floor before he was hit.

2-person, I'd want that as the lead. I'm refereeing the defense in my primary. Wish the video played for a few more seconds to see the officials handle the double whistle.

[bas2456]

I've got PC. The defender is "at the spot" well before the shooter leaves the floor, and without the benefit of slow motion (which we don't get at all anyways), I can't hardly see any flopping going on.

[mbyron]

My definition of a flopping is falling backwards in the absence of contact or far out of proportion with the force of contact. That move is T-worthy in many instances.

Incidental contact that happens to knock over a leaning, off-balance defender is still not a foul: nothing in the definition of foul mentions whether the defender ends up on the floor.

IMO, leaning back and making oneself off-balance actually widens the scope for incidental contact, since it becomes more difficult to put such a defender at a disadvantage.

The OP seems to me clearly a PC foul and not incidental contact.

[icallfouls]

Even though the player was leaning, LGP appears to have been established, contact appears to be torso to torso. Charge is apparent from this video.

Curious what the T had and why