Video review question on block charge

[Jay R]

This is a tough call as the contact is sort of glancing rather than directly on the torso. The defender seems to be falling down before the contact occurs. In that situation I often go with a block call.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jay R

This is a tough call as the contact is sort of glancing rather than directly on the torso. The defender seems to be falling down before the contact occurs. In that situation I often go with a block call.

Plus, the defender's feet are really wide, so if there was contact on the leg first, that's a block.

[drofficial]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Plus, the defender's feet are really wide, so if there was contact on the leg first, that's a block.

You cannot defend this call by rule either. There is nothing whatsoever about feet being shoulder-width apart (that's only on setting legal screens). In fact, a player is allowed to move laterally to maintian legal guarding position, and it is impossible to move laterally with out spreading feet.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by drofficial

You cannot defend this call by rule either. There is nothing whatsoever about feet being shoulder-width apart (that's only on setting legal screens). In fact, a player is allowed to move laterally to maintian legal guarding position, and it is impossible to move laterally with out spreading feet.

Um, actually he can. What about 4-23-1: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playning court, provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have legal position if contact occurs."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drofficial

You cannot defend this call by rule either. There is nothing whatsoever about feet being shoulder-width apart (that's only on setting legal screens). In fact, a player is allowed to move laterally to maintian legal guarding position, and it is impossible to move laterally with out spreading feet.

Um, I can.

Specifically NFHS rule 4-23-1--"A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or LEG into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs."

And you can add rule 4-45-6.."The defender may not belly up or use the LOWER PART OF THE BODY or arms to cause contact outside of his/her vertical plane which is a foul."

Those are basics. Always a judgment call but if you think that a leg is extended, you should call a block every time.

[drofficial]

But look at the clip, boys. There is NO WAY you could argue that the defender extended a leg or hip or anything. There is direct shoulder to torso contact.

Of course you can't stick out a leg or shoulder. But you can certainly obtain legal guarding position and have your feet more than should-width apart.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drofficial

But look at the clip, boys. There is NO WAY you could argue that the defender extended a leg or hip or anything. There is direct shoulder to torso contact.

Of course you can't stick out a leg or shoulder. But you can certainly obtain legal guarding position and have your feet more than should-width apart.

I did look at the freaking clip. As I saw it, it's kinda inconclusive. And it's not definitive either that the defender didn't extend a leg imo. That's why a block/charge call is a judgment call. And that's also why a blocking call for extending a leg is also defensible by rule. And I personally can't think of one single good reason why your judgment, or mine for that matter, would be any better than the official who had a good view and made the call.

Imo your second-guessing is not defensible by the film shown.

[drofficial]

I guess we are not looking at the same clip. I suppose one could somehow argue that it's a block, but certainly not because a leg was extended into the path of the offensive player. This is clealy a shoulder right into the torso.

[drofficial]

Originally Posted by Jay R

This is a tough call as the contact is sort of glancing rather than directly on the torso. The defender seems to be falling down before the contact occurs. In that situation I often go with a block call.

You cannot defend that call by rule: there is nothing whatsoever about a defender falling down being illegal. In fact, it even says that it is perfectly legal for a defender to prepare for contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jay R

This is a tough call as the contact is sort of glancing rather than directly on the torso. The defender seems to be falling down before the contact occurs. In that situation I often go with a block call.

In that situation, I'm inclined towards a no-call.