Couldn't help but think of todays...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My goodness, I can't believe an official could look at this video (at :54) and not see a PC foul.

I see nothing on the video at 1:24 that suggests a foul. I don't have the L's look at the play, though.

Agree....easy PC. You don't even have to look twice or in slow-mo to break it down...it is obvious.

As for the foul at 1:24, the camera angle is inconclusive. It is somewhat suggestive of body contact but it is possible that the primary force was through the ball. The lead was in a great position to make the right call.

[APG]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Also, can anyone explain to me what were they conferring about, exactly? She had called the foul; Santa Monica was clearly in the act of shooting, so what's there to discuss? Go ahead and enforce your botched call.

It appeared to me that they were discussing a timing issue and whether the foul occurred before or after the time expired since there were players and the coach pointing at the scoreboard.

And let me ask you think, what exactly did the defender do illegally to earn a blocking foul? Did she not have two feet on the ground and torso facing the dribbler? Did she move forward or obliquely into the dribbler? We know time and distance isn't a factor. She takes the contact square in the torso or so it appears. What did you see that made it a blocking foul?

[JRutledge]

PC foul all the way on the first play.

Cannot tell anything from the blocked shot.

Peace

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My goodness, I can't believe an official could look at this video (at :54) and not see a PC foul.

How can that be a PC foul? The center slid towards her to cut her off, and was never set. She clearly undercut the ballhandler as she was going up for the shot. That's a blocking foul on the center.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

It appeared to me that they were discussing a timing issue and whether the foul occurred before or after the time expired since there were players and the coach pointing at the scoreboard.

And let me ask you think, what exactly did the defender do illegally to earn a blocking foul? Did she not have two feet on the ground and torso facing the dribbler? Did she move forward or obliquely into the dribbler? We know time and distance isn't a factor. She takes the contact square in the torso or so it appears. What did you see that made it a blocking foul?

If it was a timing issue, okay. But from what the narrator stated, I didn't see any issue with the time on the clock. It's possible, however.

As far as the block/charge @ :54, the center moved toward the ballhandler to cut her off on the drive. She never stopped moving before the ballhandler went airbourne and contact occurred. By definition the center is responsible for the contact made and it's a blocking foul.

[APG]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

How can that be a PC foul? The center slid towards her to cut her off, and was never set. She clearly undercut the ballhandler as she was going up for the shot. That's a blocking foul on the center.

Pause it at the 54 second mark. The defender has two feet on the ground and torso facing the defender. She slides laterally (as is her right due to gaining LGP) to maintain her LGP. At the 55 second mark, she still has her torso in the path of the dribbler when the dribbler makes contact with the defender. The dribbler is not airborne when the contact was initiated. There is no undercutting of an airborne player.

Lastly, being set has nothing to do with being in LGP to take a charge. If you use that language with players and coaches, you're just perpetuating a myth.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Pause it at the 54 second mark. The defender has two feet on the ground and torso facing the defender. She slides laterally (as is her right due to gaining LGP) to maintain her LGP. At the 55 second mark, she still has her torso in the path of the dribbler when the dribbler makes contact with the defender. The dribbler is not airborne when the contact was initiated. There is no undercutting of an airborne player.

Lastly, being set has nothing to do with being in LGP to take a charge. If you use that language with players and coaches, you're just perpetuating a myth.

You can not simply pause it at :54 and think you can make an accurate call on that play. Movement is still occurring. And according to the legal guarding position rule, you can only move laterally or obliquely provided you do not move towards the opponent when contact occurs.

When you cut off a slasher, you're moving towards that player. Note: the rule doesn't say move forward; it says moving towards. You must stop the motion before contact occurs (that's what I mean by "set"), and the center didn't. And since she didn't, she is liable for the contact.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

You can not simply pause it at :54 and think you can make an accurate call on that play. Movement is still occurring. And according to the legal guarding position rule, you can only move laterally or obliquely provided you do not move towards the opponent when contact occurs.

When you cut off a slasher, you're moving towards that player. Note: the rule doesn't say move forward; it says moving towards. You must stop the motion before contact occurs (that's what I mean by "set"), and the center didn't. And since she didn't, she is liable for the contact.

The movement I see is pretty much at a right angle to the path of the dribbler.
Legal guarding position was obtained, and the dribbler created the contact.

[APG]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

You can not simply pause it at :54 and think you can make an accurate call on that play. Movement is still occurring. And according to the legal guarding position rule, you can only move laterally or obliquely provided you do not move towards the opponent when contact occurs.

When you cut off a slasher, you're moving towards that player. Note: the rule doesn't say move forward; it says moving towards. You must stop the motion before contact occurs (that's what I mean by "set"), and the center didn't. And since she didn't, she is liable for the contact.

All I can say then, is you're seeing a different play than everyone. IMO, the player obtains LGP at the 54 second mark. As is her right by obtaining it, she is allowed to move laterally to maintain it. I don't have her moving towards the defender because she takes the contact in the torso. That fact that she was moving or wasn't "set" has no baring on this play because she has LGP. She doesn't get to the position after the player went airborne because the contact originated before the player was airborne.

I will try and make a slow motion clip of the play to make it easier.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

The one @ :54 is definitely a blocking foul; I don't know what in the world Poly was complaining about on that one. The lead could have called that one in his sleep. And the guy narrating the piece doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about.

Hard to tell from the camera angle if the defender was moving towards the dribbler at the time of contact. The Lead should have a good look at that though. From the camera angle, I would call a PC as the defender legally gets to the spot on the floor in front of the offensive player and takes the contact in the torso. The defender is allowed to be moving. The camera angle is approximately the T's look.

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

The "block" at the end of the game was just...bad. Really bad. That isn't a foul in any way, shape, or form. And it really aggravates me when officials rob kids of playing good defense like that. I've seen more than a few calls where fouls were called on clean blocks.

I don't like the foul call on the final play. I would ajudge that as a clean block. Of course, my comment has nothing to do with robbing the kids. I just see that as a good defensive play whether it happens in the first quarter or the final seconds of a game.
What I can't stand is the overselling of the calls by the officials with their exaggerated mechanics.

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Also, can anyone explain to me what were they conferring about, exactly? She had called the foul; Santa Monica was clearly in the act of shooting, so what's there to discuss? Go ahead and enforce your botched call.

They were likely discussing how much time was left, if any, when the whistle sounded. You can see a leading zero on the scoreboard clock in the video, but not the rest of the digits.

[APG]

Here is a clip of the block charge play from the 54 second mark of the original clip.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

All I can say then, is you're seeing a different play than everyone. IMO, the player obtains LGP at the 54 second mark. As is her right by obtaining it, she is allowed to move laterally to maintain it. I don't have her moving towards the defender because she takes the contact in the torso. That fact that she was moving or wasn't "set" has no baring on this play because she has LGP. She doesn't get to the position after the player went airborne because the contact originated before the player was airborne.

I will try and make a slow motion clip of the play to make it easier.

I'm seeing the right play. The issue isn't what we see as much as how we enforce the rule.

The fact that she was moving DOES have barring on this play, because the movement is TOWARDS the ballhandler. There's no ifs, ands, or buts on this; that's the exception the LGP rule makes. And the center was moving towards the player and never stopped the movement. The center is not allowed to move laterally if it's towards the ballhandler.

[walter]

I guess you are going to stand alone. Since it is the dribbler, time and distance don't matter. I see the secondary defender, after establishing LGP, moving laterally, beating the ballhandler to the spot and the contact is clearly center torso. I have PC without a doubt. There is nothing that says a defender has to be set/still to get the PC call. As for the other play, from the angle we have on the video, I have a clean black and play on.

[APG]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I'm seeing the right play. The issue isn't what we see as much as how we enforce the rule.

The fact that she was moving DOES have barring on this play, because the movement is TOWARDS the ballhandler. There's no ifs, ands, or buts on this; that's the exception the LGP rule makes. And the center was moving towards the player and never stopped the movement. The center is not allowed to move laterally if it's towards the ballhandler.

I don't know what your definition of towards is.



To me, towards the defender is any movement in the blue region with the defender being the N in the picture. If a defender has LGP, they may move in any direction (including the straight line) in the white to maintain that position. I have the defender moving laterally to maintain. She legally gets to the spot before the dribbler and is there before she's airborne.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

To me, towards the defender is any movement in the blue region with the defender being the N in the picture. If a defender has LGP, they may move in any direction (including the straight line) in the white to maintain that position. I have the defender moving laterally to maintain. She legally gets to the spot before the dribbler and is there before she's airborne.

Once again, the rule says toward, not forward. There's a difference. You can move toward someone without moving forward (which is actually what the center did). And you can move forward without moving toward someone that's to the north of you.

When a defender moves in to cut a slasher off, they're moving toward the dribbler. Doesn't matter what their shoulders or torso are pointing; it's towards them. Therefore they have to take responsibility for any contact drawn due to their movement. The center could have easily stopped her movement and ran parallel with the slasher and made a play on the ball. Instead, she moved under the dribbler's forward movement and made contact.