Video review question on block charge

[Adam]

Remember that one time, when a guy posted a video looking for opinions and got pis$y when those opinions didn't match his own?

[drofficial]

I am not getting pissy. But, true, I don't see how anyone reviewing this play could make the case that the defender illegal extends a leg into the path of the dribbler. The rule book is clear that if there is contact into the torso of the defender (after the defender established legal guarding position), the offensive player is responsible. And that is exactly what we have on this play.

I'd like to hear other opinions.

[Adam]

It's not a hard and fast rule that torso contact = a charge. Do you have the exact wording?

[Adam]

ok, just watched the video. I would defer to the official on the floor with position. He can see that opposite-side leg better than we can; and whether the knee is sticking out into the shooter's path. Really hard to tell from our angle, however.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

it's not a hard and fast rule that torso contact = a charge.

+1

[GoodwillRef]

First of all, the video using the word "Flex" makes me chuckle. Second, I think this is a mechanics issues...we don't make calls in rotation for this exact reason. The center offical has a great look at this drive and play. I would like the lead to stop in the paint when the drive from the "C" side starts.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by drofficial

I am not getting pissy. But, true, I don't see how anyone reviewing this play could make the case that the defender illegal extends a leg into the path of the dribbler.
.

From that video, you can't tell for certain either way but the movements of the defender suggest that is the case. Given the location of the lead, he had a view 10 times better than the camera angle.

Originally Posted by drofficial

The rule book is clear that if there is contact into the torso of the defender (after the defender established legal guarding position), the offensive player is responsible. And that is exactly what we have on this play.

I'd like to hear other opinions.

Uh, no. It doesn't. Contact that creates an advantage for the offensive player/team is a foul, not contact alone. As others have said, a falling defender (sort of faking the foul) is much less likely to be disadvantaged by contact than a defender who is continuing to actually play defense.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Remember that one time,

At band camp?

[Texas Aggie]

I would defer to the official on the floor with position.

+1. There's nothing on the video that indicates he got it wrong. He's got a better angle than the video does and it appears to be a charge even from the video.

There are too many officials that put way too big a burden on the defense. I see too many charges called blocks at all levels. One other problem I see a lot of is when the defender has LGP, it is assumed its always a charge if there is contact. NO. Don't call a foul unless the player was actually fouled. As silly as that sounds, it seems too many feel they must make a call when a no-call is the appropriate one. If the dribbler tries to go around a LGP defender, doesn't make it, there's contact but the defender wasn't displaced, you should probably pass on the call.

[Texas Aggie]

Why are you asking for opinions if every time someone disagrees with you you tell them they are wrong?

Perhaps because its called a message board! Where educational discussion takes place! And there is such things as right and wrong (or correct an incorrect) in basketball officiating! None of which is inconsistent about opening a topic for discussion and then favoring one view or another.

I'm always amazed at how sensitive officials can be in a forum. If he's wrong, call him on it and prove your point.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Perhaps because its called a message board! Where educational discussion takes place! And there is such things as right and wrong (or correct an incorrect) in basketball officiating! None of which is inconsistent about opening a topic for discussion and then favoring one view or another.

I'm always amazed at how sensitive officials can be in a forum. If he's wrong, call him on it and prove your point.

Because he has already made up his mind and doen't really want to hear anything opposite to it. Kind of like my ex-wife every time she asked for my opinion on something. She really didn't want my opinion, she just wanted validation.

So drofficial gets the same response my ex' started getting: "Why the hell are you asking me if don't want to hear my opinion. Do what you want and leave me the F' alone about it"

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Because he has already made up his mind and doen't really want to hear anything opposite to it. Kind of like my ex-wife every time she asked for my opinion on something. She really didn't want my opinion, she just wanted validation.

So drofficial gets the same response my ex' started getting: "Why the hell are you asking me if don't want to hear my opinion. Do what you want and leave me the F' alone about it"

So, how do you know drofficial isn't your ex-wife?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, how do you know drofficial isn't your ex-wife?

I wish that were the case. Then maybe I could cut back on some child support.

[drofficial]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

+1. There's nothing on the video that indicates he got it wrong. He's got a better angle than the video does and it appears to be a charge even from the video.

There are too many officials that put way too big a burden on the defense. I see too many charges called blocks at all levels. One other problem I see a lot of is when the defender has LGP, it is assumed its always a charge if there is contact. NO. Don't call a foul unless the player was actually fouled. As silly as that sounds, it seems too many feel they must make a call when a no-call is the appropriate one. If the dribbler tries to go around a LGP defender, doesn't make it, there's contact but the defender wasn't displaced, you should probably pass on the call.

I could not agree more. The official in the clip called it a block. But it appears to be a charge even from the video angle. Thus the call is incorrect imo.

But in response to what I am trying to accomplish, the answer is what Texas Aggies says: Way too many charges are called blocks. What in the world could the defense have done better on this play. He sprinted to get between the dribbler and the goal, established LGP, maintained his position, and was run-over (thru the torso) by the offensive player. How is that not a charge?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drofficial

I could not agree more. The official in the clip called it a block. But it appears to be a charge even from the video angle. Thus the call is incorrect imo.

But in response to what I am trying to accomplish, the answer is what Texas Aggies says: Way too many charges are called blocks. What in the world could the defense have done better on this play. He sprinted to get between the dribbler and the goal, established LGP, maintained his position, and was run-over (thru the torso) by the offensive player. How is that not a charge?

We've already told you: the defender's right leg is out of view, and it looks to me as if the offensive player has redirected to the defender's right.
Honestly, after viewing it again, I'll say I would no-call this play from the angle we have. The defender appears to me to be falling on his own rather than as a result of contact.

You imply with "even from the video angle" that the video angle is a better angle than the official has on the floor. I disagree, as the official has a great view of the defender's positioning and stance.