The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   What would you do? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/60131-what-would-you-do.html)

APG Wed Dec 15, 2010 08:07pm

Haha...I was more wondering who jeffpea would have take the call in the play. Is this one of the plays that the C shouldn't call as it is a drive to the basket? It is a secondary defender, but it was in the C's primary.

For what it's worth, I would have a player control foul as well and would have the C take the call though I see nothing wrong with a double whistle from the lead.

Welpe Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 707702)
Just wanted to note that this play happened before the rule change for secondary defenders attempting to take a charge.

Gotcha. I was wondering if that was it because I couldn't see anything else that would make this a block.

Camron Rust Thu Dec 16, 2010 04:42am

Between the lead and the point of contact were two other players who were uninvolved in the collision. He was triple stacked. I don't think he even had a look at the play....he was guessing (and got it wrong). But, it was a secondary defender so, the lead must have been right since it was his primary (or coming towards him). :eek:

Yes, i know, the defender was actually still outside the paint (certainly not under the basket) when the contact occurred and had actually come from further outside, which means the L didn't even have coverage of that player at any time from his position across the paint.

Plus, the offensive player was not airborne, so the under-the-basket rule, if it had been in effect, would have not even mattered....its purpose is not relevant to a dribbler curling through the lane and not shooting.

Amesman Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by zm1283 (Post 707722)
The defender for VA Tech established LGP and slid to his right to maintain it and took the hit in the torso from the offensive player who was not airborne. PC all the way.

+1 -- putting away my plumber's kit now ...

VaTerp Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 707809)
Between the lead and the point of contact were two other players who were uninvolved in the collision. He was triple stacked. I don't think he even had a look at the play....he was guessing (and got it wrong). But, it was a secondary defender so, the lead must have been right since it was his primary (or coming towards him). :eek:
Yes, i know, the defender was actually still outside the paint (certainly not under the basket) when the contact occurred and had actually come from further outside, which means the L didn't even have coverage of that player at any time from his position across the paint.

Plus, the offensive player was not airborne, so the under-the-basket rule, if it had been in effect, would have not even mattered....its purpose is not relevant to a dribble curling through the lane and not shooting.

+1 on all accounts.

And there is a fundamental issue of "calling what you see." There is NO WAY the L "saw" this play. He guessed and got it wrong.

I recently had a play very similar to this as the C and had a PC. The L had nothing b/c he didn't "have a good look." The coach was screaming..........

at his player, "where the hell were you going."

Raymond Thu Dec 16, 2010 05:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by justacoach (Post 707721)
Respectfully disagree...PC all the way
You're not one of those "He was moving" kind of guys, so what convinces you to call a block?

I've called plenty of PC fouls when the defensive player was moving. IMO Washington never established LGP on the offensive player and the collision occurred when Washington was moving laterally into A1 path.

BillyMac Thu Dec 16, 2010 05:58pm

Assuming No Airborne Shooter ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 707911)
The collision occurred when Washington was moving laterally into A1 path.

And there is something illegal about this?

We've been told that (assuming a non-calculus background) there are eight directions that the defender can move in a situation like this (again, assuming no airborne shooter): forward, backward, right, left, forward right, forward left, backward right, and backward left. Only three of these movements are illegal, and would result in a defensive blocking foul. The other five movements by the defensive player would result in a player control foul.

Now please don't make me take out my protractor.

Raymond Thu Dec 16, 2010 07:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 707926)
And there is something illegal about this?

We've been told that (assuming a non-calculus background) there are eight directions that the defender can move in a situation like this (again, assuming no airborne shooter): forward, backward, right, left, forward right, forward left, backward right, and backward left. Only three of these movements are illegal, and would result in a defensive blocking foul. The other five movements by the defensive player would result in a player control foul.

Now please don't make me take out my protractor.

Billy, please quote my entire post and then ask the question. ;)

BillyMac Thu Dec 16, 2010 07:53pm

Is "Half-Quoted" A Word ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 707946)
Billy, please quote my entire post and then ask the question.

If you were commenting on the defensive player never originally having legal guarding position, then I'm sorry that I half-quoted you. Now I won't have to whip out my protractor. I left it back at the lab in my lab coat pocket protector anyway. I was just trying to scare you. Mention a protractor to most people and they run away. Thanks for not calling my bluff.,

Adam Thu Dec 16, 2010 08:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 707911)
I've called plenty of PC fouls when the defensive player was moving. IMO Washington never established LGP on the offensive player and the collision occurred when Washington was moving laterally into A1 path.

I'm curious: which of the requirements of 4-23-2 haven't been met?

Camron Rust Thu Dec 16, 2010 08:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 707911)
I've called plenty of PC fouls when the defensive player was moving. IMO Washington never established LGP on the offensive player and the collision occurred when Washington was moving laterally into A1 path.

Really?

B5 (just to give him a normal label) was directly in the line of A1's established line of travel when A1 was jut stepping past the 3-point line. A1 came nearly straight down the outside of the right lane line directly at B5. As A1 veered slightly towards the lane, B5 shifted to stay in that line. This one is not even close. B5 was in LGP for several steps. In fact, he had about as much LGP is possible.

Even the body language of lead, after the player was called, tells you he thinks he got it wrong. He's tugging on his pants and waiving for his partners to get the ball in. He just want's to get the ball back in play to get everyone to forget about it.

Raymond Thu Dec 16, 2010 09:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 707962)
Really?
...

Even the body language of lead, after the player was called, tells you he thinks he got it wrong. He's tugging on his pants and waiving for his partners to get the ball in. He just want's to get the ball back in play to get everyone to forget about it.

I'm sure he's waving to get the ball back in play b/c they had a Blarge and he didn't want to linger on the situation. As far as pulling on his pants, well maybe that something he used to do all the time anyway.


As far as A1's path, we just don't see it the same. His angle was toward the basket as soon as he got past the primary defender. B5 would have been in his path had A1 been driving directly towards the endline.

zm1283 Fri Dec 17, 2010 01:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 707981)
I'm sure he's waving to get the ball back in play b/c they had a Blarge and he didn't want to linger on the situation. As far as pulling on his pants, well maybe that something he used to do all the time anyway.


As far as A1's path, we just don't see it the same. His angle was toward the basket as soon as he got past the primary defender. B5 would have been in his path had A1 been driving directly towards the endline.

To establish LGP you have to have two feet on the floor facing the player with the ball. The rule doesn't say you have to be 100 percent squared up with him at all times during the play. I don't see how this play could be a block.

mbyron Fri Dec 17, 2010 07:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by zm1283 (Post 708008)
To establish LGP you have to have two feet on the floor facing the player with the ball. The rule doesn't say you have to be 100 percent squared up with him at all times during the play. I don't see how this play could be a block in NFHS or NCAA.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

iref4him Fri Dec 17, 2010 09:54am

I got the game video and had another official review the call that is in question. I had another official review the game video. He agreed that the play in question originated from the C's PCA and the C had the best view of the play. There was no secondary defender. Blue 11 was the primary defender and was plowed over. The 'L' was on the opposite side of the key and had 6 players in front of him. His take on the play is that 'L' should not have had anything since he was out of position and 'C' had the best look.

The video of the game does vindicate me as the 'C' and calling the charge. The video official said that his question is why was 'L' looking over in 'C' PCA when he had 5-6 other players to watch in his own PCA. The 'L' was ball watching.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1