Another opinion poll
 

Block? Charge? No Call? Travel?

YouTube - No call 2010_01_15_01_24_02.avi

Then let the critiquing fly! ;)

Looks more like a no call to me. It cannot be a travel if the ball is knocked out of his hands.

Peace

I can see a no call here. Hard to tell from the video how much body contact there was. Appears the defender stopped moving forward before the offensive player went airborne and didn't cause contact with the arms.

No violation , as the offensive player definitely lost control of the ball (and on a try, no less, so he can dribble again when he recovers it).

The only other call I see as possible is a PC. But, like I said, hard to tell from the video how much contact there really was.

I had no call until I read Rut's response. Now I have a charge.

:D Just kidding!!

On the play in question, I got nothing. I wonder if anyone else would have called 23 white (I think that's his number) for pushing on the rebound before that, though. Looks like he moves the kid about 6 feet towards the hoop.

I think it's a block or nothing. Hard to tell from this angle, but is the defender still moving laterally just after the shooter jumps?

Hard to tell which actually happened first.

your options are either block or PC....the contact affected both the defender (who went down) and the offensive player who lost the ball...contact taken in the chest/torso area....

I vote PC foul.

If you don't like that call, I can understand, however a call (block or charge) MUST be made...you can't pass on this.

Why MUST a call be made?

If anything I have a block. Looks to me like the defender is in fact moving laterally all the way up until contact (which means after the shooter has left the floor). Probably a fine no call though.

I agree, but it's hard to tell from the angle how much contact was really made (the balck offensive player was moving obliquely, so he didn't "run through" the white defender), and how much the white defender flopped.

And, to answer someone else's question -- I wouldn't have a "rebounding foul" on white 23 -- although he was in contact with the black player, it looked to me as though the black player was moving forward mostly on his own, and the contact didn't affect the rebound (it went to the other side of the basket).

Well, must is too strong a word. I'm passing on this as are many people in this thread.

Just cause a player goes down and/or the shot is affect doesn't mean it's a foul. Good defense alters shots. Lack of balance causes players to go down.

I do think the trail has happy feet, though. He's "sprinting" away from the basket as the kid is starting his drive.

I Concur!!

Why can't we pass on this? The contact looked minmal and looked like the defense was trying to "sell" the call. Also the defense had LGP and was straight up. The contact wasnt severe enough and therefore a no call is probably the best option.

I have a block...defense doesn't have LGP in my opinion. If you look at his feet, he is still moving sideways into the path of the shooter.

I am not convinced it "must" be made. It is hard to tell if the contact is what caused the fall or the player was off balance. Again, I do not disagree based on what I am seeing if a call is made, but I think I can make a case for nothing being called also.

Peace

I have a block b/c the defender moved after A1 went airborne, but only if I'm the Lead pinching the paint. Trail and Slot were good in no-calling the play.

I agree...I originally had PC, but you can see that defender is still moving to his left to illegally block the dribbler....Block call....

I watched the video 6 times and still couldn't decide what I wanted to call...did defender have LGP? Can't tell for sure even with the benefit of replay...Did defender flop? Maybe, maybe not...Airbourne shooter and PC? Again, maybe, maybe not. Thus, if it's not obvious and apparent in real time, I'd leave it alone and play on. No Call. Seems like that's what the crew did here.

I have a block on the play.

I would also ask the trail if he is getting paid more money for that fake hustle.

I mean...
 

That Trail looks pretty fit and that he can "get up". Stay and officiate! ;)

I'd love to have the C's look at this one. Instead we get this look, which makes us guess a bit.

After watching the video a few times...

The defender clearly establishes LGP before the offensive player goes airborne. He then moves slightly laterally and backward to maintain it. But his movement does not appear to change the the fundamental relationship between them. In other words, he was "there" before the offensive player went airborne, and what little movement he made did not substantially alter how the impending contact would occur. Certainly we prefer the defender be "set" on this play, but the defender is allowed to move to maintain LGP.

The offensive player is moving from the elbow directly to the basket, and the defender is directly in the path. The contact is squarely in the chest, and is caused by the offensive player. So, if I have a call on this, it's going to be PC.

However, from the video I can't tell how significant the contact really is. Nor do we have the context to know how earlier similar plays have been called/no-called.

No problem.

Have a poll.

Is this something we really need to know? Similar plays were similar. They were not the same. This call may or may not be the same.

I'm ambivalent about polls. However, I have found that such discussions are useful. Even more useful than finding out what others think of a particular play or call is finding out how others think about and evaluate plays.

I'm ambivalent about polls. However, I have found that such discussions are useful. Even more useful than finding out what others think of a particular play or call is finding out how others think about and evaluate plays.

And I am unanimous in that!