Block, Charge or No Call
 

Block, charge or no call

Block.Charge 7 on Yahoo! Video

I'm alright with the official's no call.

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.

This is a bang bang play and 2 players hit the floor....In my association we are expected to make a call one way or the other. Watching the video the first time I was satisfied with either a block or a charge call....but after replaying it 5 or 6 times I am confident the shooter jumped as the defender moved forward to set up....and therefore I have a block: basket and 1 shot.

It is also my opinion the shooter would have fallen without B2 crashing into him and finishing him off. Also I am assuming NFHS rules.

JMO

No call. B1 flopped and this caused B2 to trip and fall into A1 after the basket. Incidental contact. It looked like A1 carries the ball as he made his move to drive to the basket.

The lead has a much better angle on this than the camera.

B2 had LGP until he nudged forward before contact. It can't be a charge, so it's either a block or incidental. If you're not sure, go with incidental.

My Association too
 

I've been told, "When bodies are on the ground you have to call something."

no contact??
 

looks like most of the contact is caused by the primary defender and not the guy moving in late where there was minimal if any contact
great no call, ref is right there, great sight line, another good no call

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.

What I've been told is, "if you don't call something, you'd better be able to explain why."

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

next level
 

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'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.

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.

Then I've got to be a better splainer......
 

Then I haven't mastered it yet.

When being evaluated, my case is usually the block charge. A1 is going down the lane, B1 anticipates the charge, flops or is demonstrative with contact, and I pass. Hence the "you gotta call something."

And, while I know these are ya HTBT type situations, their advice to me is usually, call the block and tell B1 to either take the charge or knock off the acting (as he only has x# of fouls left).

I haven't mastered this yet.....but, I have another opportunity tonight. Hoorah! :)

I don't like the imperative to call something whenever bodies hit the floor. In this play, the defender was late but the contact did not affect the play. No call is the right call, as others have said.

If the O-coach asks, I'd say, "no disadvantage, coach." If the D-coach asks, I'd say, "your player was late, coach." Keep your explanations to 5 words or fewer. ;)

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.

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!:p

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

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

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.

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.......:rolleyes:

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

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

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!!!:D
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 :D 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!!:p

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? :D

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.

I'm good with a no-call. From our angle not easy to tell how much contact there really was between A1 and the secondary defender. Primary defender looked like he had some contact on the A1's arm.

Wasn't really a "crash" IMO. 2 bodies ended up on floor due to tangled feet.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Is that them little fish egg things?

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.

Charge?? seriously!!!
 

There is no way this is a charge, the secondary defender clearly is late, the drive has begun and the SD defender arrives late. Although he is not moving means nothing, the drive to the basket started. The contact is on the shoulder not the middle of the chest, the lane was not covered. Now for the real question, block or no call. I stand by the no call.

Who taught you this?

learning
 

not sure who taught me this, there are only two of us refs in this small rural town where we do 4 or 5 games a year

The defender does NOT have to be in place before the drive starts. He only needs to be there before the shooter leaves the floor. I can understand those who think he's slightly late (I don't), because it's close. But really, this play is only close if you truly know the rule.

And he doesn't need to be stationary, either.

not there
 

I have watched this video numerous times with stop and go, the offensive player's left leg is clearly in the air when the secondary defender arrives. Although the secondary defender is stationary it is too late as the OP is well into his shooting motion. Agreed that you do not need to be standing still, you just need both feet legally in front of the dribbler, this video is not about that however. great no call

His left leg may be in the air, but he jumps off his right leg, so that's your necessary reference. He's not airborne until both feet are off the floor.

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. :)

From the angle we get, I agree there should probably be a whistle. However, with the L standing right there, I have to defer.

I don't mean to ruin your day my friend, but I 100% agree with you......:eek:
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!!!

As Rockyroad said in an earlier post, I don't think this lead was focused on this play...watch his head when the shot goes up...me think he got lucky and deferred to no whistle...which I still think is correct.

We're making this too hard. Look at the video again, and stop it at the 4 second mark. The defender who is flattened establishes his legal guarding position there--he has left his man, the front of his torso is facing the opponent, he is between his opponent and the basket, and has both feet on the floor (time and distance are not a factor--there is no minimum time and distance, and there is no maximum time and distance). Simply because there is another defender between him and the opponent at the time does not negate his initial legal guarding position. From that point on he moves to maintain that position, which he may do either laterally or obliquely (in this case obliquely). Though the ball handler beats his primary defender, the other defender with a legal guarding position retains every privilege as if he were primary--he is still entitled to the spot. As stated earlier, the ball handler meets none of the requirements for not being the one who initiates contact (head and shoulders past the torso, etc.).

It was good defense, and should have resulted in a charge call. Defender got hosed.

Good point Snaq....and with that I stand corrected. By rule we have a charge.

Now, for what we can't see. It looks like the shooter jumped to the side of the defender, and what we can't tell from the video is the extent of the contact. It looks very possible that while there was some slight contact on the defender's shoulder, it wasn't hard enough to knock him down.
It's very possible that this play is B2 flopping to try to draw a call, tripping B1, who then knocks A1 down. B1's contact against A1 is so close to the ball going in the official lets it go (dead ball.)

All of this is, of course, not taking into account the possibility that the lead just messed up and was watching the ball, but it sure appears he was looking at the initial contact between A1 and B1 and passed on that.

The dead ball status doesn't matter if the contact is by or on an airborne shooter. Was A1 already back down to the floor? I don't think so.

It looked to me like he had landed prior to being contacted by B1, who had been beat on the play and tripped over B2 and into the shooter.

A question for the floor:

When close plays like this happen, and a charge is called, do the dissenters in the crowd somehow feel the offensive player is being picked on, or better phrased, has an entitlement over the defense?

1. They think the player has to be stationary to draw a charge.
2. They think you're blind.
3. They think you're cheating their team.

Rule of thumb: if the crowd thinks you kicked it, you probably got it right.:rolleyes: