Video review question on block charge

[drofficial]

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

[kdays78]

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

[drofficial]

"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."

[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.

[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.

[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.