Shot blocked. Player on floor.
 

Couldn't help but think of today's and previous back and forths when I saw the following.

With seconds winding down we have a player have their shot blocked and end up on the floor. Sound familiar?

The fun starts at about 1:24.

I don't see a foul in this play.

Play on

I disagree. I don't see how anyone can say there's not a foul on the play when the camera angle is completely different than the angle the Lead had. No, if you had been the Trail, opposite, you may not have a call but the Lead has a different look.

Would you concede that the camera angle is good enough to rule out a block?
________
SexMadame

I've got a PC @ 0:54.

@ 1:24 - I've got a foul.

Gotta love the AAU parents running up and down the sidelines after each close call.

No, I wouldn't. If an airborne defender jumps into the path of the shooter and there's contact with the body, that's a block. A defender can be airborne and still commit a block.

In the end, whether it's called a push or a block is in material if the Lead feels there was contact that placed the shooter at a disadvantage.

That is quite the block mechanic by the L in both the :54 and the 1:24 plays.

I agree with that. What I said was, I don't see a foul.

love the coaches decked out in their Sue Sylvester game gear...classy

I agree as well. I should have qualified my statement by saying from the camera angle shown, I didn't have a call.

Also here's the embedded video for everyone's convenience.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s6r57DBZtoY" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

+1

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

PC foul all the way on the first play.

Cannot tell anything from the blocked shot.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_ARPv1dbFfA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

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 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.

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

http://www.csulb.edu/%7Erodrigue/geog140/180degrees.jpg

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.

Well you're using a definition of towards that I've never heard anyone use in relation to legal guarding position. I can concede that maybe from the lead's angle, the player was moving towards (my definition of, not yours) the dribbler. That's a big maybe though. From the angle provided, I'd stick with my PC call. I will say that it seems that you're the only one so far to call a block while the rest have been near unanimous in saying player control (from the angle shown).

Perhaps my view of this play is wrong and someone will come along and explain it better to me. Or perhaps someone will come along and explain this play and LGP better than I have.

The way you're viewing this, the rule is pointless; as there's no way a player can move laterally to cut off an opponent without breaking your interpretation of "towards."

There is a difference between moving "towards" the opponent's path and moving towards the opponent. In this play, she moves towards her opponent's path; perfectly legal. Don't confuse the two.

As she is moving slightly backward (obliquely) at the point of contact, she's actually moving away from the opponent at that point.

If the defender was moving "toward" the offensive player and made contact, the contact would have been on the side / shoulder. In the play presented, the defender moved to maintain LGP in the (changing) path of the offensive player. PC foul.

You're confusing the dribbler's movement towards the defender for the defender's movement towards the dribbler.

One thing that I saw that I didn't like.

I don't like the mechanic of the T working the arc by moving in the direction towards the DL, when the actions of the players (ball carrier A1 and defender B1) are moving away from the DL and towards the restricted area.

Rather, move with the play as the play moves closer to the basket.

It looks like the T is 7 feet above the 3PLE and the contact is 6 feet below the FTL. With the diagonal taken into account, the T is about 21 feet away.

With the ball at the top, the L has that low-post matchup, even though that matchup is pretty tame. Given that we're to "referee the defense", L will be looking at B2 - who is the secondary defender to A1's drive. Why does the T have a whistle on a crash as she moves away from the play and is clearly the L's call to make?

Of course I agree to get the call correct, but if you watch the video, the T is still trying to get to a spot to sell the call even after the L closed in and already gave a prelim.

Maybe it's just me, but as far as the T is concerned, it's what not to do. YMWV.

No it isn't. It's simple: don't create contact by moving into the dribbler. She could have easy quit on the charge and still have been able to maintain defensive pressure inside without making contact. Frontcourt basketball players do it all the time.

I didn't. She moved towards the opponent. The distance between the two became shorter because she was moving towards the opponent. Thus, she is liable for contact made.

She didn't move backwards even an inch. If anything, considering the volleyball line that she was stepping on when she began the cutoff, she actually moved forward from that point. Look at her feet. C'mon.

Set? Since when is that a requirement for obtaining and then maintaining LGP?

This is a clear, no-doubt-about-it PC foul and (quite frankly) a terrible call by an official who wasn't properly officiating the defense.

Notice you're walking alone here. As a good friend frequently says, "When it's you against the world, back the world."

0:54--with benefit of watching the play on video as opposed to live action I have a PC. But I can understand if the Lead saw something different from his angle.

Last second shot: I have nothing on that play. And the Lead was blowing her whistle as soon as the shot was blocked. Based on the timing of her whistle and her angle on the play I don't see how she comes up with that call. Again, with benefit of video replay that she doesn't have.

The distance was closed by the dribbler not the defender.

I was going to say that before, but I got distracted. It appears the lead anticipates a foul on that last second play. Again, I don't have the view the lead does....

The dribbler is going at an angle, the center gets in front of her and all the contact is in the torso. Time and distance don't matter. I don't see how this can be a block. The only possible explanation is the lead identified the secondary defender late and didn't see the dribbler until the crash. Other than that, this is an EASY PC call if you see the whole play.

As for the trail's movement, I have actually been instructed at camp to move out and toward the middle of the floor to maintain vision between the players. If you look at the view of the trail, that may be what she is doing. She nevers gives a prelim signal (easy JAR), so I wonder, given she had the same angle of the play as we did, if she had the same call as the lead? We will never know.

I'd say the same thing BadNews. KMB must never call a PC foul if he doesn't have one there from that angle.

+1

Also evidence that it was a PC: after the contact, A1 has her feet down where B2 used to have her feet. Had it been a block, A1 would have careened to a different location.

Are you really an official? :rolleyes:

Completely irrelevant to whether her actions were legal or not. We don't officiate based on what the player could have done differently. That sounds like a coach's perspective to me.


The distance became shorter because the dribbler was moving towards here. Again, a completely irrelevant statement; otherwise defenders would always be liable for contact. Hell, even a defender moving straight backwards and getting run over would be liable if that was at all relevant.



C'mon is right. The defender may have moved slightly towards the division line, but given the angles of travel, she was also moving slightly away from the dribbler.

If the dribbler hadn't been moving, then B1's movements would have had her moving farther away from the dribbler.

I have to echo scrapper's question after your statement about her not getting "set."

+1 I was beginning to ask the same thing :confused:?

As I look at 1:24 I could possibly see a pushing foul on blue 20 in the lower right corner of screen. Hard to say for sure with that camera angle.

+1

That maybe the most ignorant statement I've ever read on this forum. :(

Yeah, I don't get it. How else would you play defense.

To be quite honest, that defender made one of the best defensive plays I've seen all season and she was rewarded with a personal foul. Too bad, really.

I must be watching the wrong play.

I paused the play with the Lead's arm just beginning to move up, even with her waist. At that time, the shot has been blocked and the ball has been caught by a defender. The call clearly came afterwards. If she has a foul, when the hell is she supposed to call it?

Why? What advantage has been gained? If you're calling something that ticky tacky in a tie game with under 10 seconds left, I sure don't want to be on the floor with you.

I tell ya, some of you guys are really reachin'.

I agree. I can't believe i'm hearing this kind of interpretation from someone. It is so wrong in so many ways it seems likes a rookie coach or men's league player talking instead of an official.

If he's truly an official, it is no wonder we have so much trouble getting consistency (across officials) when we have officials that are calling things like that and using terminology...terminology that actually reveals he really doesn't know the rule but is winging it based on common mythology.

Yes, there is a big "if". IF you are really an official and calling this play a block (Even after watching it on video repeatedly), then you are part of the problem.

+1. KMB has mysteriously disappeared from the thread.

I have no idea how any official who watches this play on video after the fact really thinks the play at :54 was a block. The defender gaining LGP and moving to the spot where the dribbler is going to be is not "Moving toward the dribbler". It is moving toward the place where the dribbler will be momentarily.

I'm watching a play in which the Lead is looking up at the ball and has 2 bodies between her and the shooter and yet she whistles a "block" before the player makes it back to the ground. If she is reacting to the body contact then she has superhuman reaction plus eyes in her neck. She reacted to the ball being blocked, not the contact to the the shooter.

I've certainly held my share of minority opinions over the years, but I don't recall a four-page thread in which there's been only one person holding a given opinion on a play.

I normally don't subscribe to the "if it's you against the world..." philosophy, but when forty officials are looking at a play and you're the lone dissenter, then I would say it's probably best to re-examine why you're alone.

As I said earlier KMB, people would be along to either confirm my line of thinking or discredit it. When you're the only one calling this a block, you might want to go back, rethink your definition of "towards a player" and LGP. It seems like in your games, it's near impossible for a defender to maintain LGP.

4 pages? :eek:

Mine is only 2! I *hate* having to click on Next.

+1

Can't imagine not having 40 replies per page

Here's something new
 

Check at about 2:24 and you see one of the losing players shove a winning player as they leave the court. The winning player's father (I assume) kind of gets between them and it's over. Too bad. Cat fights are cool. :rolleyes:

Beat your hips like those officials do in an OHSAA tournament and you might be getting a phone call from Columbus asking for the name of your choreographer.

PC Call on the first one and a no-call on the 2nd one.

IMO, neither play is really even close.