Block, Charge or No Call

[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

[Anchor]

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

No way this is a no-call by NFHS standards. Somebody got their spot taken illegally. That would be true even if it did involve a flop.

A player gets hit square between the tits there better be an obvious reason it is not a PC foul. There are only 3 ways to lose legal guarding position once obtained (which he had done as pointed out in a previous post):
1) offensive player gets head and shoulders around front of torso of defender (which clearly didn't happen)
2) defensive player is out of bounds (which he is not)
3) defensive player is moving towards offensive player. The minute forward motion involved by the defensive player bracing to absorb impact is not the same as moving forward.

By rule one does not lose LGP by initiating a flop; however, when one flops so that the contact doesn't occur, or the subsequent contact does not interfere in any way with their legal guarding position, there can be no foul.

It was a charge, plain and simple.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

Our association has clearly stated that advantage/disadvantage is not an acceptable way to call a game, and that all illegal contact should be called.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree somewhat. The definition of a foul also includes illegal contact without regard to advantage/disadvantage. That contact might be off-ball and really not put any player at a disadvantage, but if the contact is illegal it should be called.

A prime example might be a rebounder badly displacing an opponent under the board while a shot is in the air. If the shot goes in, that contact obviously had nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage...the contact never does affect anything... but it still has to be called. If it isn't, you're gonna have open warfare out there. Or maybe should you use a "patient whistle" on this one too?

And what kind of disadvantage is there really if an airborne shooter charges into a defender after his shot is released if the ball goes in? After the basket, the ball has to be corralled, taken OOB and thrown in to start play again. I can't see how anyone can say that the charge has hindered the defender from performing any normal defensive movement. You gotta call the obvious charges though. Or do you use of them "patient whistles" on that play also? Or does that "patient whistle" theorem only apply to the defender in a block/charge situation instead of both players.

Instead of trying to solely use advantage/disadvantage, methinks all of the the concepts outlined under both the definition of a "foul" and "incidental contact" need to be used.

The bolded parts are what I'm talking about.

As for the video, I wish I had a better angle, but it looks like PC to me. I don't think you can no-call this and the defender did not initiate the contact.

[bas2456]

I thought the defender obtained LGP either the instant before, or at the same time as the shooter left his feet. I agree with those who say it's PC or nothing, and I also agree with those who think the defender flopped a little.

It looks like there's definitely contact, but it's not like it was a hard collision. Would defer to L's judgement there.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Our association has clearly stated that advantage/disadvantage is not an acceptable way to call a game, and that all illegal contact should be called.

This statement makes no sense. Most contact is illegal precisely because it puts an opponent at a disadvantage.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Most contact is illegal precisely because it puts an opponent at a disadvantage.

Agree. That's exactly what the definition of a "foul" says in both NFHS and NCAA rulesets when they state it's a foul if the contact hinders normal offensive or defensive movements. That basically is advantage/disadvantage.The definition of "incidental contact" also uses the same concept.

It's the "most contact" part of your statement above that makes our job difficult at times. Sometimes we have to call some contact that is excessive but didn't really put an opponent at a disadvantage or reach the stage of intentional/flagrant also.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree. That's exactly what the definition of a "foul" says in both NFHS and NCAA rulesets when they state it's a foul if the contact hinders normal offensive or defensive movements. That basically is advantage/disadvantage.The definition of "incidental contact" also uses the same concept.

It's the "most contact" part of your statement above that makes our job difficult at times. Sometimes we have to call some contact that is excessive but didn't really put an opponent at a disadvantage or reach the stage of intentional/flagrant also.

It's why I said "most contact". Some fouls you just gotta get. I don't think this one fits that category.

My only absolute is that there will usually (see, it's not really an absolute) be a foul if both players go to the floor. One player? I'm not willing to make that statement.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Our association has clearly stated that advantage/disadvantage is not an acceptable way to call a game, and that all illegal contact should be called.

Disagree also with a caveat.....

If your association is telling you that that advantage/disadvantage is not an acceptable way to call violations, then I agree with them. Of course, even that blanket statement has some minor but but fairly universally accepted exceptions a la 3 seconds and 10 seconds on a FT shooter.

Advantage/disadvantage is an accepted way to determine if contact is illegal or not in a lot of situations though. But after you determine that the contact is actually illegal by using advantage/disadvantage, then that illegal contact should be called.

Thoughts?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree also with a caveat.....

Is that them little fish egg things?

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree also with a caveat.....

If your association is telling you that that advantage/disadvantage is not an acceptable way to call violations, then I agree with them. Of course, even that blanket statement has some minor but but fairly universally accepted exceptions a la 3 seconds and 10 seconds on a FT shooter.

Advantage/disadvantage is an accepted way to determine if contact is illegal or not in a lot of situations though. But after you determine that the contact is actually illegal by using advantage/disadvantage, then that illegal contact should be called.

Thoughts?

I don't mean to ruin your day my friend, but I 100% agree with you......
It is plays like this one that make me wish all players wore those old LA Gear basketball shoes (Or should I say Karl Malone endorsed LA Gear "Catapult" basketball shoes) that had the blinker lights on the soles that blinked on when your foot was on the ground and blinked off when your foot was off the ground. Then it would be easy to determine if both feet were off the ground!!!