You Make The Call

[CLH]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Contact maybe marginal but two playrs going to the floor like this probably deserves a call, the defense was not great and the contact changed shot... I think I'd make it a block

With all due respect...you state the contact is marginal, but you would call a foul...it's one of the other, if its marginal, no foul, if its a block its not marginal.

(kinda like how something can be new and yet still improved, lol)

Second, two players falling on the ground, does not a foul make. Just because a play is ugly does not mean a foul occurred. "If two players go down, I'm calling a foul" is one of the "personal philosophies" that we have been trying to get away from in the last few years.

regards,
ch

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CLH

With all due respect...you state the contact is marginal, but you would call a foul...it's one of the other, if its marginal, no foul, if its a block its not marginal.

(kinda like how something can be new and yet still improved, lol)

Second, two players falling on the ground, does not a foul make. Just because a play is ugly does not mean a foul occurred. "If two players go down, I'm calling a foul" is one of the "personal philosophies" that we have been trying to get away from in the last few years.

regards,
ch

Marginal does not mean incidental.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by CLH

With all due respect...you state the contact is marginal, but you would call a foul...it's one of the other, if its marginal, no foul, if its a block its not marginal.

(kinda like how something can be new and yet still improved, lol)

Second, two players falling on the ground, does not a foul make. Just because a play is ugly does not mean a foul occurred. "If two players go down, I'm calling a foul" is one of the "personal philosophies" that we have been trying to get away from in the last few years.

regards,
ch

As mentioned before marginal and incidental are not equal. With all due respect...Suggest that you go back and look at the definition of incidental.. When contact interferes with a normal offensive or defensive play it is not incidental. This paly interfered either with a LGP or the ability to come down unimpeded. Based on what I saw in video with the lean, I would call a block, however rather have a charge here than nothing.

Calling this one way or the other at least tells the team something will be called. Teams will get better position or hold up on shots. I have seen games where a play like the one shown is a no call and then you get 6-7 more like it, call one and you get less...

[Brad]

If you have a call, it should be a block. If you have a no call, I could live with that as well.

Calling a PC on this is horrible.

The offensive player doesn't make any contact with the chest. He barely makes contact at all -- the defensive player's right arm touches the offensive players hip and then the defensive player flops to the floor.

This isn't even close. If you think it is, go full screen on YouTube so that you can get a better look!

[tref]

Originally Posted by Brad

If you have a call, it should be a block. If you have a no call, I could live with that as well.

Calling a PC on this is horrible.

The offensive player doesn't make any contact with the chest. He barely makes contact at all -- the defensive player's right arm touches the offensive players hip and then the defensive player flops to the floor.

This isn't even close. If you think it is, go full screen on YouTube so that you can get a better look!

Absofreakinglutely, call it like it is Brad!

An important factor that hasn't been brought up is the team officiating concept. I think its safe to say that 80% of us say its not a p/c. The more important piece would be "why" was it ruled incorrectly??
I know in different parts of the country we have different philosophies on who gets first crack at block/charge plays. But staying connected to SDF plays that go to the rim at T/C would permit a great opportunity for a double whistle in this sitch! Would've been nice to see the T pop & maybe the two officials could've communicated & came out with the right call.

It all boils down to a detailed pregame... a flop is a block tonight, 2 opponents going down in the paint after the shot & before the shooter lands needs a whistle, double whistles on 2ndary defenders go to the L, etc.

Being likeminded is crucial here, perhaps the T was passing on the flop/block & the L has bodies on the floor in the paint so he feels obligated to put a whistle on it. IMO, the L never really picked up the 2ndary defender & goes with a p/c.

NoFear: There comes a time when we have to say we were wrong, learn from it & move on. You've been provided with ample rules & caseplays to support the difference between, when LGP must be obtained vs. continuous motion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

...Being likeminded is crucial here, perhaps the T was passing on the flop/block & the L has bodies on the floor in the paint so he feels obligated to put a whistle on it. IMO, the L never really picked up the 2ndary defender & goes with a p/c.
...

This was the Lead's call. No way the T can pick up the secondary defender (B2) on this play. T has A1 being contesting by B1 on the drive and then B2 shows up right in front of the Lead. The Lead rightfully had the only whistle on this play, just unfortunate that replays shows he probably got it wrong.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This was the Lead's call. No way the T can pick up the secondary defender (B2) on this play. T has A1 being contesting by B1 on the drive and then B2 shows up right in front of the Lead. The Lead rightfully had the only whistle on this play, just unfortunate that replays shows he probably got it wrong.

So what happened to staying connected to plays that originate in your PCA?

Isn't the primary function of the T to be refereeing the ball handler & defender while seeing as many of the other 8 players as possible?

I understand that some officials choose to give L 1st crack at it, but there's nothing wrong with doubling down in proper cadence, especially when we see the L is about to get it wrong. I think the official who saw the start of the play, then saw it develop towards the rim & saw the finish of the play has a better chance of getting it right than the official who catches the a$$-end of the play.

In a perfect world, after the L pops & before he punches: T *tweet tweet - tweet tweet* Get together for less than 7 seconds, score it, block, 1 shot.
L buys the beer!

Say for instance we have the same play but it comes from the Cs side. The 2ndary defender is on the other side of the lane line & the L didnt get a chance to rotate. That C had better be able to pick up the defender if we dont want the L calling across paint!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

So what happened to staying connected to plays that originate in your PCA?

Isn't the primary function of the T to be refereeing the ball handler & defender while seeing as many of the other 8 players as possible?

I understand that some officials choose to give L 1st crack at it, but there's nothing wrong with doubling down in proper cadence, especially when we see the L is about to get it wrong. I think the official who saw the start of the play, then saw it develop towards the rim & saw the finish of the play has a better chance of getting it right than the official who catches the a$$-end of the play.

In a perfect world, after the L pops & before he punches: T *tweet tweet - tweet tweet* Get together for less than 7 seconds, score it, block, 1 shot.
L buys the beer!

Look at the play again. The Trail initially did not follow the play down so he was out of position. And even if he did follow the play he would not have seen the secondary defender move into place because A1 & B1 would have blocked his view.

Originally Posted by tref

Say for instance we have the same play but it comes from the Cs side. The 2ndary defender is on the other side of the lane line & the L didnt get a chance to rotate. That C had better be able to pick up the defender if we dont want the L calling across paint!

Hopefully the Lead would have at least closed down so he would have still had a good look. But regardless if the play would have originated from the C's PCA he would have been at the free throw line extended when the play started, not at half court. So he would have had been below the play the play and had a clean look at any secondary defenders coming into his viewing area.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by tref

It all boils down to a detailed pregame... a flop is a block tonight, 2 opponents going down in the paint after the shot & before the shooter lands needs a whistle, double whistles on 2ndary defenders go to the L, etc.

Being likeminded is crucial here, perhaps the T was passing on the flop/block & the L has bodies on the floor in the paint so he feels obligated to put a whistle on it. IMO, the L never really picked up the 2ndary defender & goes with a p/c.

Same point BNR made.

I'm also in strong agreement that plays like this need to be part of the crews pregame, good point.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

It all boils down to a detailed pregame... a flop is a block tonight

I don't understand this mentality. Why isn't a flop simply a flop?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I don't understand this mentality. Why isn't a flop simply a flop?

Yep. There's nothing illegal about a player falling backwards to absorb contact.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I don't understand this mentality. Why isn't a flop simply a flop?

When a flop doesnt result in any contact whatsoever, it obviously cannot be a block.

When a flop causes the airborne shooter to hit the deck, in order to do our job & protect the shooter, to me, its gotta be a block.

When 2 bodies are down & the defender laid down causing the shooter to go down... BLOCK.

In my experiences, calling a flop a block keeps players from flopping.
I've even heard coaches say to their players, "Play D & stay on your feet, they arent going for it tonight!"

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep. There's nothing illegal about a player falling backwards to absorb contact.

Yep. They may also turn or duck when contact is immenent.
The bolded part is not only part of that rule, it is also missing from this equation. Sorta like the word intentional in a kicking violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Yep. They may also turn or duck when contact is immenent.
The bolded part is not only part of that rule, it is also missing from this equation. Sorta like the word intentional in a kicking violation.

And on a play like this the defender gets the benefit of the doubt on whether contact is imminent. No way I'd consider the OP does not involve imminent contact, for example.

[NoFear2020]

Originally Posted by tref

Absofreakinglutely, call it like it is Brad!

An important factor that hasn't been brought up is the team officiating concept. I think its safe to say that 80% of us say its not a p/c. The more important piece would be "why" was it ruled incorrectly??
I know in different parts of the country we have different philosophies on who gets first crack at block/charge plays. But staying connected to SDF plays that go to the rim at T/C would permit a great opportunity for a double whistle in this sitch! Would've been nice to see the T pop & maybe the two officials could've communicated & came out with the right call.

It all boils down to a detailed pregame... a flop is a block tonight, 2 opponents going down in the paint after the shot & before the shooter lands needs a whistle, double whistles on 2ndary defenders go to the L, etc.

Being likeminded is crucial here, perhaps the T was passing on the flop/block & the L has bodies on the floor in the paint so he feels obligated to put a whistle on it. IMO, the L never really picked up the 2ndary defender & goes with a p/c.

NoFear: There comes a time when we have to say we were wrong, learn from it & move on. You've been provided with ample rules & caseplays to support the difference between, when LGP must be obtained vs. continuous motion.

Thanks tref, I am here to learn. I understand LGP and continuous motion I am not using one over the other. I am using them together.
Aren’t they to be used but together?
Please would you point out the case play once more?
Thanks!

[APG]

Originally Posted by NoFear2020

Thanks tref, I am here to learn. I understand LGP and continuous motion I am not using one over the other. I am using them together.
Aren’t they to be used but together?
Please would you point out the case play once more?
Thanks!

4-11 Continuous Motion

ART. 1...Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by a defensive player during the interval which beings when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.
ART. 2...If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she is permitted to complete the customary arm movements, and if pivoting or stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any activity while holding the ball. These privileges are granted only when the usual throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.

Continuous motion and LGP have absolutely nothing to do with each other.