Block, Charge or No Call

[Tio]

Wow! This play is not a no-call. You have a train wreck with 3 players hitting the floor. The crew must have an opinion block or charge, namely the lead (the secondary defender came from).

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.

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.

[Adam]

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.

This play wasn't "rough play," it was clumsy play. There's a difference.

[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

[Pantherdreams]

I'm comfortable with a no call there.

There is contact that doesn't effect the play. B1 goes down but it trying to get a call, could have absorbed the contact a number of ways. A1 got his shot off couldn't absorb inadvertant/inconsequential contact he was responsible for causing.B2 isn't in a proper athletic position to keep his balance and stumbles over 2 downed players.

No real immediate advantage or disadvantage created. Play on.

As for if bodies are on the floor you need to call something . . .if your calling something here because there was contact you aren't "managing a game" you are taking flow out of it by calling stuff cause kids hit the floor. All you'll end up with is every kid who gets bumped or nudged hitting the deck and their coaches expecting a call one way or the other.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.


I agree. Good call, MTD.

I stand corrected per NR's quotation. Thank you for keeping me in line!

Very close play indeed, but I feel strongly that this play MUST have a whistle. No-call on this would be incorrect. I do stick by my initial reaction of a block.

[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.

[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.