Block, Charge or No Call

[rockyroad]

I'm OK with a no-call here for all the stated reasons...but what bugs me about this video is the Lead official. I can't be 100% certain, but I don't even think he is watching those players - it looks like he is watching the flight of the ball. He doesn't pay any attention to the players as they are landing at his feet.

That concerns me. That's the time when we get stupid crap going on - when the players are getting up and realize the official isn't even watching them.

[Judtech]

Just b/c I can:
This looks like a GREAT example of the "Patient Whistle" theory. It would be nice to see what would have happened had the shot not gone in. Would a block or a foul on the player trying to block the shot been called? It may just be the official waited for the bucket to go in before they determined if the contact was enough to disrupt the shot. So they ignored the block/charge and the other defender following thru and contacting the offensive player as they were both going to the ground!!
Man I am ornery today!

[truerookie]

Charge!!! I cannot see a "No call" on this play..

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

CHARGE!! CHARGE!! CHARGE!! I watched the play very closely and the defender obtained a LGP just before the offensive player went airborne to shoot the ball.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, I agree about the timing. What's hard to tell from this angle, however, is if the defender flopped before contact.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Tio

But more importantly, we need to agree that this play needs a whistle. No-calls on this play are part of the reason "rough play" has been a point of emphasis the past 10 years.

Disagree.

All contact is not illegal contact, no matter how violent the contact may be. You can have a train-wreck with legal, incidental contact; and that includes a trainwreck involving a ballhandler.

The POE's are issued because illegal contact is not being called.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Just b/c I can:
This looks like a GREAT example of the "Patient Whistle" theory. It would be nice to see what would have happened had the shot not gone in. Would a block or a foul on the player trying to block the shot been called? It may just be the official waited for the bucket to go in before they determined if the contact was enough to disrupt the shot. So they ignored the block/charge and the other defender following thru and contacting the offensive player as they were both going to the ground!!
Man I am ornery today!

And I know exactly why you can...and why you persist on doing so....

It might help if you had a clue as to what a "patient whistle" actually is. You very obviously don't.

Just because a shooter is able to make a circus shot after being hammered doesn't mean that the contact on him now has to be incidental instead of illegal. Using your special interpretation of a patient whistle, the shooter could end dismembered in the fourteenth row, but you'd have us saying "play on, the ball went in".

lah me.......

[PCKen]

Looks like a no call but it's pretty close. I think the crowd will be mad either way not that crowds should influence decision

[JRutledge]

Looks like a PC foul to me. But then again I do not have the best angle to determine. The official in the Lead position does. I would not have had a problem with a PC foul at all, but then again I cannot confidently say it was a flop.

Peace

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I know exactly why you can...and why you persist on doing so....

It might help if you had a clue as to what a "patient whistle" actually is. You very obviously don't.

Just because a shooter is able to make a circus shot after being hammered doesn't mean that the contact on him now has to be incidental instead of illegal. Using your special interpretation of a patient whistle, the shooter could end dismembered in the fourteenth row, but you'd have us saying "play on, the ball went in".

lah me.......

I am very aware what a patient whistle is (I can even show you several 'report cards' that give me high marks in that regard. I even got bubble gum and lollipops with them!) The play you describe and the play on the video are two different plays. While some may think it is a ticky tack foul, I am boldly going to say that the contact in YOUR scenario would be a foul. I would even go so far to say that it would be a SHOOTING foul!!!
As for the play on the video, I probably would have whistled a blocking foul. Since no one here was on the endline for the call I was just trying to give a possible divination of what his thought process was. As I watched the video a couple more times that is where the "patient whistle" theory came from.
I am so glad you don't disappoint me You always can bring a smile to my face by reading things into my posts that are not there. To assume that I would not call a foul until I knew whether the basket went in is about ludicrous as me assuming you call every bit of contact a foul!!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No call. B1 got there late, but it didn't affect the shot. A1 ended on the floor not because of B1 but because of B2 and that was either after or just as the ball ecame dead.

I couldn't say it any better. I agree.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I know exactly why you can...and why you persist on doing so....

It might help if you had a clue as to what a "patient whistle" actually is. You very obviously don't.

Just because a shooter is able to make a circus shot after being hammered doesn't mean that the contact on him now has to be incidental instead of illegal. Using your special interpretation of a patient whistle, the shooter could end dismembered in the fourteenth row, but you'd have us saying "play on, the ball went in".

lah me.......

There are officials, some may or may not be in my area, who will use the success or failure of the shot to aide them in determining whether some contact is incidental or not. It's not the sole factor, but it's a factor. Personally, I don't do that.

If the shot, in my opinion, is made noticeably more difficult by the contact for which the defense is responsible, it's a foul whether it goes in or not.

[junruh07]

I have not been at this very long, but something that has been stressed in our rules meetings is that there is nothing in the NFHS rulebook that allows for not calling a foul because it doesn't affect the shot.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by junruh07

I have not been at this very long, but something that has been stressed in our rules meetings is that there is nothing in the NFHS rulebook that allows for not calling a foul because it doesn't affect the shot.

The definition of a foul includes the idea of contact that puts the opponent at a disadvantage. No disadvantage, no foul.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by jallen

it is very easy to call this play and probably not have any arguments but to get to the next level in refereeing (as it appears the refs in film have done) is to figure what needs to be called and what can be let go. The secondary defender was late and did cause some contact, but in the end great no call. this ref has reached the next level. He understands the game and does not need the borderline calls to be made in his game. GREAT NO CALL

I don't know what level of refereeing you are talking about, but at mine this is NOT a no call. The defensive player came over for the purpose of drawing a charge, he was late and therefore a blocking foul should be called, regardless of affect of the shot or not. Although Jurassic made a good point in a previous thread by stating that the "right" call is different at different levels. I have my thoughts and you have yours of course, but to no call this play when the player was making an attempt to draw a charge which he failed to do (IMO) puts the onus on that defensive player.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Tio

Based on the film, the play is a blocking foul. The defender did not have legal guarding position when the shooter began his habitual shooting motion.

You used the wrong standard for determining the decision, so not surprisingly you reached the wrong conclusion.
You need to judge whether the defender has obtained his position prior to the shooter becoming airborne (both feet leaving the floor). If you pause the video while the offensive player still has one foot on the court, you can see that the defender is in his position with both feet on the floor and his torso facing the opponent. He got there just in time.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

CHARGE!! CHARGE!! CHARGE!! I watched the play very closely and the defender obtained a LGP just before the offensive player went airborne to shoot the ball.

MTD, Sr.

I agree. Good call, MTD.