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.

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

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.

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

+1

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.

At band camp?

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.

+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.

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"

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

:D

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.

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

Watch the lead official. He called it a charge and sent it the other way. What's your beef? He called it your way!

nope, play #4, the one in transition, the lead counts the basket.

OK, I found it...the one I found at 1:34 was play #3, a block/charge, but called by lead as a charge....thanks.....

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.

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.

Um, maybe because the calling official had a better view than you and in his judgment it was a block? And again, why are still asking for opinions when all you are looking for anyway is somebody to agree with your opinion? Why not just come out and say 'I'm right and everybody who disagrees with me is wrong."? You're never going to listen to or evaluate an opposing view anyway. Your mind is made up. Nothing the matter with that either. Just don't tell me that my opinion is wrong because you have nothing to offer via the rules imo that will confirm a statement like that.