Help me work through a block/charge scenario.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by CoachCER

I think that is what he is pushing for here.

Talking in hypotheticals, what kind of action with the shoulder would you need to see to come up with an intentional/flagrant on A1?
What if he saw the defender stepping and lowered his shoulder just before contact?
I don't think that happened here, as this player dips his shoulder a lot on drives to the basket, even when not in traffic.

My assistant director was sitting with me, and his take was A1 dips to absorb contact. I personally think he does it out of instinct for no particular reason.

I will say in almost 20 years of officiating and longer watching/playing I don't recall ever seeing a shoulder like the one you describe that resulted in an intentional/flagrant foul if that tells you anything. It would have to be a scenario where I judged that the shoulder was not part of his move to the basket, but that he went out of his way to seek out the defender and deliver the shoulder to him intentionally - and I mean REALLY went out of his way. More than likely there would also be something leading up to this play that would tip me off that A1 was looking for trouble if I judged it to be intentional/flagrant.

Bob, would you really have a double foul in this scenario where you judge that A1 initiated contact deemed intentional/flagrant? I could see your second example about A1 punching B1 after B1 contacted him illegally, but in this case if the first contact is A1 initiating intentional contact on B2, do you have a foul on B2 also?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachCER

My issue is the lowering of the shoulder and aggressive drive into the lane by the other team's player."

Since when is an aggressive drive into the lane, shoulder or no shoulder, a problem? It's only a problem when a defender has LGP and then it's a PC foul, not a block. This wasn't intentional or flagrant action by A, based on the OP.

There was no defender that had established LGP. Basketball is sometimes a contact/collision sport -- it isn't chess.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CoachCER

You would think that, right?
That is the call that was made.

Here is where I need help. The coach of B1 is going ape poop over the lowering of the shoulder by A1 on his move to the basket. I will say his move was hard, and aggressive, but to me it looked like he dips to absorb a blow moreso than looking to dish one out.

I need help explaining to the coach why the shoulder is the non-issue if B1 did not establish first.

Here are some comments from the "complaint" sent to me:
"I understand the nuances of the blocking foul on # 3. As I pointed out in my email, our player (#3) should have been charged with a blocking foul, as he clearly was not set prior to the contact. I was not lobbying for a "charge" either, because you can't have a charge and a blocking call symultaneously. My issue is the lowering of the shoulder and aggressive drive into the lane by the other team's player."

This is a little different than his first argument where he wanted the charge, now he is arguing that A1 should receive a foul after his player is called for the block, based on the aggressive nature of the move.

Tell the coach there is nothing in the rules that prevents a player from lowering his shoulder. It's often a good indicator, but nothing more. There's certainly nothing against being aggressive. In fact, the rules specifically allow a player to absorb contact; which may well be what was done here.

Basically, it all boils down to this, though.

You're not going to second guess the judgment call of one of your officials.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CoachCER

..... you can't have a charge and a blocking call symultaneously.

I thought everybody knew that.

[Back In The Saddle]

When I was young and stupid (I'm older now) I used to jump my truck off of a drop-off next to the driveway at the back exit to where I worked. I'd get going at a good clip, go airborne, and then land in the road and tear off toward home. Which was all just fun and games until one night I discovered after going airborne that another vehicle had been in my blind spot (which, when I was young and stupid was larger than most people's). The really interesting thing about being airborne in a vehicle is that no matter how hard you crank the wheel or stomp on the brakes...you just keep heading the same direction at the same speed. I don't know, it has something to do with physics.

Same thing in this case. It's not like the shooter went headhunting for the defender. When the shooter dipped his shoulder and went airborne toward the basket, there was nobody in his path. But once he's airborne, if the defender steps into his path...there ain't much the shooter can do about it. It's the own defender's fault he got creamed, and the foul is just insult to (self-inflicted) injury.

You might also want to point out to this coach that a player dipping his shoulder is not a rule, it's only a rule of thumb.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The really interesting thing about being airborne in a vehicle is that no matter how hard you crank the wheel or stomp on the brakes...you just keep heading the same direction at the same speed. I don't know, it has something to do with physics.

When I was in the military (back in the day) I took an Anti-Terroroism and Evasive Driving Class in Europe (Audi's, Merc's, BMW's, Opal's, etc). Very cool.

When you're car is sliding on ice/snow and out of control - this is your exact same reaction - push that break pedal through the floor. It's not until you release the break pedal will you be able to control the car and avoid whatever it is you're trying to avoid. If you keep that break pedal down, you will continue to go straight no matter how hard you turn that wheel.

Break, pause, release, steer.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programs......

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

. I don't know, it has something to do with physics.

Darn those laws of nature!

Same thing in this case. It's not like the shooter went headhunting for the defender. When the shooter dipped his shoulder and went airborne toward the basket, there was nobody in his path. But once he's airborne, if the defender steps into his path...there ain't much the shooter can do about it. It's the own defender's fault he got creamed, and the foul is just insult to (self-inflicted) injury.

That's how I'm seeing this. Even if the shooter saw the defender moving in and lowered the shoulder as a warning, there's nothing illegal about that.

The only way I could see this being anything but a simple block/charge equation, is if the shooter started his move to the basket, saw the defender and THEN adjusted his path as he lowered his shoulder to deliberately ram the defender. I think I'd call that at least intentional.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by CoachCER

I need help explaining to the coach why the shoulder is the non-issue if B1 did not establish first.

Just tell the Coach to have his player get LGP...

and "take it like a man!"

[Gargil]

This is a block. B1 was late getting to the spot on the floor. I have seen many defenders punished by trying to take a charge but not getting LGP.