What would you do?

[APG]

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]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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]

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).

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]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).
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]

Originally Posted by justacoach

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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]

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.