Video review question on block charge

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drofficial

I guess we are not looking at the same clip.

We can't be. I'm sureasheck not looking at the one where you are right and anybody that disagrees with you is automatically wrong.

You're the one that put it up for discussion. No need at all to get pissy if/when somebody disagrees with you.

JMO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why are you asking for opinions if every time someone disagrees with you you tell them they are wrong? Folks have given you reasons why they would call it a certain way and every time you dispute them. What are you trying to accomplish?


BTW, I can't see the clip right now so I don't have an opinion.