Video review question on block charge
 

I am reviewing the state's video for the mandatory state clinic. Good stuff. But take a look at play 4 beginning at the 1:34 mark of the top video at the the link below. The play is use to demonstate good transition coverage. But even though the official may have hustled, he gets the call wrong. It's clearly a charge, right? The defender has established a legal guarding position between the offense and the goal and the offensive player puts his shoulder right into the defense's torse. A clear charge. Want to make sure everyone else agrees. Kind of an odd clip to use in a training video in my opnion...

Basketball Clinics Video

I would have to agre with the video official as it appears the defense was still sliding into his postion.

"Still sliding into position" is perfectly legal. There is nothing in the rulebook about "being set." The rule is very clear (7.4.b): If a player has obtained legal guarding position, the player with the ball must get his/her head past the torso of the defense. If contact occus on the torso of the defensive player, the dribbler is responsible for the contact."

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.