Call on the court = Block. Your opinion?
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wLe7MC-VlRo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I seen this play and thought it could have been a PCF.

The lead started to signal for an offensive foul. It's important to hold your signals on double whistles and pregame who is going to take these calls.

PC for me.

I thought in Women's Div 1 the C and T always took block/charge when it originates in their area. So the L was going to punch it which I had as the correct call, but she should have been the one just holding a fist up.

Is this correct?

that's pretty close. I'm inclined to agree with the block at full speed, but would not have argued if a PC were called either.

Correct.

I've got a charge, defender has LGP and is moving back and to her right. Perfectly legal, IMO. L had the right call, but she was also right to give it up to the C. Had they gone DW, I think NCAAW would have them pick one, and they would have gone with the C's call anyway.

Thats the procedure for all levels of NCAA-W.
Although the L has a whistle in favor of the p/c supporters, should she have even put air in it?

I don't mind air in the whistle, I do mind the partial mechanic. Our of your primary, come in late and hold your signal. If you're late and you're the only whistle, then you can fire off a nice mechanic. But if you're late and you're the second whistle, which most likely you are, just hold.

PC foul all the way.

Many of the people that do the hiring see it just the opposite of you. They mind air in the whistle across the paint & dont care much about what an official was "going to do." You either signalled or you didnt...

Fair Enough

I agree this is very close, but I have a block. No LGP...defender was still moving into the path until the time of contact.

I have a block on this play. The defender never stops and is coming forward toward the shooter.

Peace

Block in real time. Too close to reverse it in slow mo...and Doris Burke actually said something accurate for a change..."This is the hardest call in basketball...any official will tell you that"

I guess it depends on the official and what you live by. I do not think the block/charge call is that difficult at all. I think it is usually an easy call if you watch the right things.

Peace

I've got a PC.

I notice that the C was almost as high as the T. It helps to sell a call like this if you're closer to the play.

Block. No question.

That's funny. If there's no question...how come nobody seems to agree?

If you're right why agree with the individuals that are wrong?? j/k :D

Block.......

Was waiting for someone to mention that.

Again fellas, with Women's mechanics here it is NOT necessary to have an echo whistle from the lead with plays originating outside of the paint going to the hole. Mary has posted many bulletins on the NCAA site about this type of play. It is just danger for a blarge situation that the C would overrule anyhow!

I agree, block / charge is not the most difficult call, especially if you get in good position to officiate the play.

In this case, defender moved laterally to get to a spot before contact to the torso. All the makings of a good ol' fashion player control foul. While the mechanic might be for the C to have this, the lead was in much better position to see the defender. $.02

I'm having trouble seeing this as anything but a block - I don't ever see LGP, and defender is moving into the offensive player when contact is made (at least - below the waist she is.)

Almost Only Counts ...
 

Tough call. I've got a player control foul. I wouldn't have a problem if somebody else called a block.

Just so, I understand this according to NCAAW. If a play starts from the C's PCA they will be responsible for both the primary and secondary defender?

No...but this isn't really a primary/secondary defender type play. There never was a "primary" defender that got beat - this is simply a transition play, and since the drive started in C's PCA it is C's drive all the way to the basket.

It sure seems like an easy PC call to me. The defender had both feet on the floor and took the contact straight in the chest - so she obviously got to the spot first - and the contact took place while the shooter's foot was still on the floor, so you can't say the defender moved in underneath the shooter...I agree that this call was missed because the C was not in the proper position. For some reason he stopped way too high.

No, but to expand...in NCAAW if there's a one-on-one in front of you as the C - usually in a half court setup - and A1 starts going to the hoop you deal primarily with A1 and B1.

If A1 beats B1 then B2 slides over as a help defender on the block or in the lane, the L can pick that up.

All this assumes the L has closed down, of course.

Block.

(This is all prefaced with "in my own, limited, not-D1 NCAA-W opinion)

I was at the game, and I thought DeMayo had a rough night. In person I was okay with the block, but my wife noticed that Inouye was about to punch.

It was a tough call, IMO. And Inouye had a rough few minutes here and there, too, throughout. This was one of them.

That's funny, because the other thread "Call on the Floor = PC is basically the same thing and you got it wrong too.

In both cases the defender is moving forward and into the offense, this time the L started to show...she learned her lesson and was really slow in the C-ship game to avoid the BLARGE

What did I get wrong? I was not on the floor making these calls. And you can disagree and that is fine by me, but the other play in question the player took the contact in the chest and basically was waiting on the ball handler. Her body and feet where in front of the ball handler, that is a PC foul all the way IMO. The ball handler was also not really airborne when the contact occurred either.

Peace

If you'd like something fun to watch, check this link out...

It's the two videos side by side!


UConn ND PC or not PC vs. UConn ND Block or no Block? by VJ JugglingReferee | YouTube Doubler | Mashup Helper

If I was the lady in the nice red dress, I'd like to know how the plays are different. Are they that dissimilar that they warrant different calls?

You're not the first one to say this on these plays, but I don't see it. I see the defender moving sideways and backwards; not towards the ball handler.

I thought the same thing.

"Coach...that other guy got it wrong."

There, done.

Partner, meet bus.

Oh come on.

We're not talking about during the game. :rolleyes:

Think the coaches know about this site?

We "bus" about ten thousand times a day here.

I have a PC by a hair.

The defender doesn't have LGP until after the gather -- which doesn't matter by rule -- though she has it just before the shooter goes airborne. Still, that's a tough call for the defender to come that far away without LGP and nail it at the last possible split-second.

You rendered your decisions on both calls, and your judgment is incorrect on both. You called one a block and the other a PC. Yes, these are your opinions on both calls, but in both plays the defense is moving into the path of the shooter. In both cases you got it wrong, especially if you subscribe to the teachings of the NCAA, which you claim you do.

Just keep doing what you typically do, twist things just enough to get off the subject and divert attention from your incorrect rulings.

It's ok to admit your mistakes, learn from it and improve.

You should have been here years ago when Nevada really dug into Rut. :D

I do not think I am wrong on either play. Are both very close? Yes they are, but that does not mean I am wrong either. And both players are not moving at the time of contact, one stops and both contacts are not the same as one was not even an airborne shooter when the contact occurs. They ended up in the air, but not when they hit the defender in the chest. But maybe Golf is your game, not basketball. ;)

Do not get mad at me because I gave you crap about your little confusing OT post. There were others that were confused by your little post about golf and said so. There is even more disagreement about these plays for all kinds of reasons and point of views. So there is nothing to admit to when people back and forth disagree like should be expected when a video is shown. And considering that almost everyone watching considered both PC fouls, I wonder why you are not going off on them about their opinion. Hmmmmmmm.

Peace

Both players momentum are carrying the defenders into the offensive players at the time of contact, neither has established LGP. Obviously, basketball is not your game.

Not mad and really don't care, it doesn't bother me that you didn't like the golf video stuff, understand its not for everyone - nuff said. What I don't like is that you come in here saying you do this and you do that, or you don't do this or that and I called you on it, it was proven to you and you didn't like it.

You tell people that you are college official that subscribes to many of the philosophies being employed the last several years, but when 2 nearly identical plays are displayed you go against those very philosophies. If you are trying to educate others, the least you can do is be consistent.

I bet you there are people where I live wish that basketball was not my game either. ;)

What was I proven wrong about? Again if you disagree with my take on the calls that is fine. But you do realize that there are others that agreed with me and others that disagreed with me on both of these plays (Probably too stupid to realize that, but then again you did not say the others were wrong). Again what I say seems to bother you a lot based on this comment alone. If I admit something or do not admit something that you want me to, not much in your life is going to change unless of course you do not have much of a life in the first place. Literally until the previous conversation about your golf post, I really did not even know you existed on this site at all. You are not someone that has contributed a lot to this site in my opinion, you are not someone's opinion that I all of a sudden respect and not someone that has the demeanor to be an official if my words, a guy you will never meet and likely never work with bothers you that much.

The two plays are not identical and just because you say so does not make them so. If you knew anything about officiating you would realize that not too many plays in a game or on video are identical. I did not just star reviewing video on this site. These plays are certainly similar, but not the exact same and have different elements to how the contact took place and did not take place. I am not trying to do anything either, I took a position on the plays and just like anyone they can disagree. There is after all reasons that some guys work college ball and others work JH and complain about their schedules too. I know NBA and NCAA officials that people here and elsewhere would not agree with (and haven't when their words were posted here), so why would I think I am so special to believe that everyone would agree with me? What you need to do is stop worrying about my opinion and worry about why you are where you are in your career. Then maybe and only then you will understand anything about me. After this conversation I will not even think about what you have to say because like the rest of your comments here are irrelevant to me and probably many others reading them.

Peace

Pull Up A Chair ...
 

This is going to get good. Let the "fun" begin.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...26a5c3ade607b1

No, 7whateverhisfreakinnameis is a non-MF factor. He knows it and why he is trying to make name for himself by going after me. I am done with his punk ***.

Peace

You do realize that other people agreed with a blocking foul as well right? :confused:

And unless you're assigning games for JRut or anyone else, you saying the judgement was wrong does not make it so.

And he is probably too simple minded to realize that most people (at least early on) in this thread said this was a PC foul.

He is just a troll trying to make a name for himself here.

Peace

This play and the other play are not identical. I have a Block on this play without much hesitation. The other play is a lot more 50/50 in my book.

You have revealed yourself for what you are Putzledge. I can name call too.

What an egomaniac! You are just like the elder statesmen of officials around here. You say one thing and then do another and when called on it you resort to name calling and other tired BS. To say that I am trying to make a name for myself at your expense, well that is your ego getting in the way.

I don't need to make a name for myself or care what you think. Everyone around here knows how much you like to have the last word, so it is doubtful you will let it go. Just another old timer the game has passed by.

And if you think I am a troll (which I am not), then you took the bait.

What is really baffling to me is why we are even discussing this play. By rule,. it is totally and clearly 100% a charge. Offensive player does not get head and shoulders by defender. She goes straight thru the torso. This is an amazingly easy call. There is NOTHING in the rule about "being set," "not moving," etc. And there is certainly no time or distance involved. Defender beats her to the spot and offensive player runs her over. Charge every time.

We officials really screw up the game when we call plays like this a block.

I thought the offense had to get head & shoulders by the primary defender :confused:
Pretty tough to get by someone whos not there to get by .

Wow, reading this post was as useless as watching the golf video. Is there a reason you are speaking for "everyone"?

I will give him the benefit of the doubt with that statement. It was just a phrase...

Obviously he is speaking for everyone because anyone that disagreed with him is totally wrong about all these plays. Again why even discuss these situations, we will just have the golf guy come and tell us what to do. :)

Peace

Or Jay Bilas.

The offensive and defensive players are coming from 2 totally different angles and then there is contact at point A. So I'm seeing the defensive player impeding on the offensive player's path to the basket without first maintaining LGP. Therefore I have a block.

Has nothing to do with 'not being set' or 'not moving'. It's all about not having LGP prior to the contact, IMHO.

Thats how I see this play as well, she cant maintain what she never obtained... by rule.

I've been fascinated to read all the different opinions of this play, even in slow motion. I have a defender, with established LGP, moving backwards and to her right (obliquely, not towards the shooter), and getting hit in the chest by the dribbler. To me, it's a pretty solid PC foul, but the disagreement is still fascinating to me.

I'm willing to give it another look. At what time is LGP obtained?

I initially had her with LGP from the start, but with a more narrow view of "in the path," I can see why you'd say she didn't have it that long. Either way, I have her, at the latest, getting LGP right before contact in her chest.

And I still say the extended trail leg is irrelevant unless it's the point of contact.

Oh okay, no need for me to go back if you have initial LGP just prior to contact. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense here.

You consider the extended leg to be the trail, I have the forward leg being the extended leg since that is the direction she is attempting to go.

No biggie, tough play, tough call!

I think you need to give it up, you are obviously past your prime and you are so wrong that you need to admit your faults because this is nothing but a block. Oh I forgot, I am not a golf guy.

Sorry, back to your regular scheduled programing. ;)

Peace

Ah, I saw her left leg as extended. Either way, the contact is in the torso, not the leg, so I consider it irrelevant. You're right, though, not a huge deal as it's very close and as a partner, I could easily back either call.

As I said earlier, she didn't, IMO.

The "path" goes through "the block". To obtain LGP after sliding in front of the shooter, she must have two feet on the floor while having her torso (not just a foot) over the block. She puts her right foot on the block and is still coming into position. She lifts her left foot in order to shift her torso into the path and never gets it back to the floor before contact....no LGP.

+1

Totally agree.

Peace

Yeah but.....

I wasnt saying the contact was in the leg, simply using the leg slide as a guideline for obtaining LGP. I never saw 2 feet on the wood, in the path of the offense prior to contact.

Rut-h*le, I knew you couldn't let it go old timer.

I understand that people see this as a 50-50 play. All I have said and continue to say is that since this is a college play, and you are a college official that has said that you follow the guidelines now in use, that I disagree with your application of those guidelines and therefore your judgement on the play is ICC.

OK, so you're not a golf guy or basketball guy :)

Keep up or get out

Enjoy

I did not suggest that is what you were saying. I just think many take the wideness of the legs as a reason to make a call against the defender or suggest that the player was not in LGP. I was much more agreeing with the quoted comments because others have used the wideness of the legs as the reason.

Now to say you never saw both feet on the wood, not sure what you saw on the video. The player slide over go get in the way. They did not hop over there on one leg. The issue for me is did the player maintain LGP more than if they ever had LGP initially They did face the opponent before they got there as well.

Peace

Your season ended before mine did right? Seems like someone needs to look in the mirror.

Peace

UHmmmm, Camron it seems that you are adding quite a bit here to the definition of obtaining LGP. I get that you are explaining your position on the call, but that's adding a whole lot to what the rule book actually says.

I do not officiate women's basketball, but I have a block and don't see it being close.

On another topic, Is the outside official supposed to make this call? I have seen lots of women's officials make this call from the outside so I'm curious if the mechanic/primary coverage is different. It seems like a difficult playcalling sequence coming from the outside official on a secondary defender.

Yes this call should come from the C - who happens to be in a terrible position on this play. And it's not a secondary defender - there was never any other defender to be a "primary defender" who got beat. So the C should have this call as the drive originated in his primary.

What am i adding?

LGP requires the defender to be in the path of the opponent with 2 feet on the floor and facing the opponent. That's it. Right???

The path the opponent takes is right over the block (reference point only). So, that is the only path that matters.

The defender is facing the opponent the entire time...check.

The defender is in a possible path, but is not in "the" actual path of the opponent until the defender gets her body over the block. (an arm, foot, or leg in the path is not in the path).

She has 2 feet on the floor prior to getting to the block but not being in "the" path of the opponent yet, that is not sufficient. Both feet must be on the floor while being in the path. When she is over the block and in "the" path, contact occurs before she can establish position by getting the 2nd foot down.

Again, what am I adding?

Guess I was just confused by all the stuff about the block in your other post...but - initial LGP is established when the player has both feet on the ground and the torso facing the opponent...then the defender may move/change within the limits provided in the rules. So the whole "in the path" stuff seems to be your addition.

Not my addition, it is straight from the NFHS and NCAA rulebooks. To obtain LGP, the defender has to satisfy the definition of guarding (in the path) and the requirements for LGP (two feet on the floor, facing, etc.). You can't have LGP at all if you don't satisfy the base requirements of guarding.


NFHS Rule 4, Section 23
ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an
offensive opponent. ...... A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position
if contact occurs.
ART. 2 . . . To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

NCAA Rule 4, Section 35
Art. 1. Guarding shall be the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.
Art. 4. To establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball:
a. The guard shall have both fee touching the playing court...

Please Come Home ...
 

Did we scare him away? Where's Jurassic Referee when you really need him?

Why? This place is immensely better now. The number of gratuitous insults and the name calling that was sure to occur, and caused a lot of lurkers and new posters to disappear, if you disagreed with him is not something to wish for.

Rocky, I don't think DeMayo's (the C) positioning is that bad because part of his job on that play was to follow/stay even with the ball as it came up court, which he did.

When he made the call he looked to be about 3-4' above the FT line extended - not ideal but I'm guessing that's where he felt he had to stop to be able to see the dribbler.

Junkyard Dog ...
 

Agree. He scared me from joining the Forum for the several months that I just observed. I detest, and despise, name calling more than anybody on the Forum, but he made it type of art form. Almost something to admire. He was sure real good at keeping posters like Old School at bay. And in terms of rules, and mechanics, he was right about 98% of the time. There's no substitute for experience.

I don't think you are adding anything. However, you might be missing something, the words "obtaining initial". Again, I am responding with NFHS ruleset in mind and that might be the difference.

What you describe is obtaining initial legal guarding position. Art 3 of Rule 4-23 continues to say that after initial LGP is obtained,

a) the guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbound status
b) the guard is not required to continue facing the opponent
c) the guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs .....

The dragging left foot, which looks off the floor on the first camera angle, is still sliding in place on contact, but isn't this the case of maintaining LGP and not really obtaining it?

CR is saying in order to establish it, he must have had two feet on the floor "in the path." I think he's taking "in the path" and putting it into a place where it's not intended. Otherwise, there'd be a third criteria listed in "to obtain legal guarding position...."

And that's where I was getting confused...thanks for stating it better than I was.

Jerk.

Now shutup.

:D

I was starting to question my opinion after a while. Thanks for making me feel less alone.

The "in the path" is a global requirement for guarding. It applies to everything about guarding. If you are not in the path, you are not guarding at all. The additional requirements to obtain/maintain LGP are not relevant since you're not even guarding.


If you don't, agree, how about this play....

B3 trailing A4 down the court from behind momentarily has both feet on the floor and is facing A4. B2 is fast enough to pass A4 and steps into A4's path with one foot down and his/her back to A4 just as A4 runs into B3. B2 previously had both feet on the floor and was facing A4 (all from behind) and is now in A4's path. Are you saying this is a charge?


Additionally, since all players have two feet down at some point in the game why have that requirement in obtaining LGP if it didn't go with the additional qualifier of being in the path with two feet down (and facing)?

In order to establish LGP, the defender has to have both feet on the floor and the torso facing the offensive player...they are then allowed to move to maintain that LGP. If they move "into the path" with LGP then their movement is legal...they don't have to be "in the path" to obtain LGP.

That is simply wrong. I can't say it any plainer. NFHS and NCAA rules are very clear that you are not guarding at all if you are not in the path. A player can't obtain LGP unless they're in the path. Then, they can move to maintain it once they've been in the path with both feet down and facing.

See my play above. Block or Charge?

From AR 246...
A player who is guarding moves into the path of a dribbler and contact occurs.
RULING: Either player may be responsible, but the greater responsibility shall be that of the dribbler when the defensive player who is guarding conforms to legal guarding principles. In order to establish initial legal guarding position, the defender must be facing the dribbler and have both feet touching the playing court. When the defensive player jumps into position, both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he/she has attained a legal guarding position. No specific stance, time or distance shall be required. The guard may shift to maintain his/her position in the path of the dribbler, provided that the player who is guarding neither charges into the dribbler nor otherwise causes contact.

(Blue) If having two feet on the floor is all that is needed, why does the blue part require the two feet down again after jumping into the path of the dribbler if they were already on the floor before moving into the path?

(Red) If the guard is allowed to shift to maintain their position in the path of the dribbler, doesn't that imply they had to first obtain a position in the path of a dribbler.

True dat, he sure taught me alot!! I have a fun feeling he's watching from afar.

In the OP, I think you have to ask yourself at what point is W1 guarding B1. I see W1 running/sliding towards B1, but never is actually guarding B1. Some, I suppose, say that because W1 is moving towards B1 (engaging her if you will), is within 6 ft, etc. that she has LGP status.

The block area to me is where W1 attempts to gain LGP, but contact occurs before that happens.

+1

Some of us see this play the same way. It seems others have a different understanding of what "guarding" actually is.

I didnt think we should apply a closely guarded count (Mens 6' - Womens 3' while holding) when a defender is within the required distance, but behind or on the side or running into the play.

Can't say for sure whose season ended first. The schedule in ILL lends itself to you working later in the YEAR. I seriously doubt you worked deeper in the playoffs than I did.

The mirror treats me pretty well olden one

If I am old, you must be 20 years old. And I am probably in much better shape than most officials I come in contact with, including you. ;)

Peace

That's what old timers always say. The old "I challenge you to an officiating duel" is next I am sure.

Not that it matters but 33 yr old...you probably can't remember that far back :)

This argument is so 27 seconds ago :p

Both of you guys post an entire game & let us, the posters of the Forum, make the final call on "whose got game." :D

I agree it is old, but it is Rut who can't let it go. He said he was done with it, but keeps coming back, because he can't move on. He will surely bring it up in other posts, even if he doesn't come back to this thread. He always has to have the last word, hence 18,000+ posts, the twisting of the truth and back tracking.

He prolongs the conversations so that he can make a name for himself at the expense of others...:D

Rut, say my name :D

For the record, I had not said anything to you since your last post until today. I have not said anything to you because as I said you are a non-MF factor to me. You came back and commented about something after you claim I wanted the last word. Now you are still talking about me after several days have past. We have even gone on with the conversation of the OP and you came back still talking. So if I have not let it go, as I said look in the mirror.

Are you sure? I might bring it up because someone else makes a joke about it or comments about it like people like to do. If you have not noticed not too many people take themselves that seriously here including me. Most of us here have nothing to prove to each other as we are secure in ourselves, which you seem to not be very secure in yourself. If you were, you would not worry about what I was thinking on a play and you were too stupid to read that other people agreed with me. You still have not addressed two people that pointed out to you that they did not agree with your assessment on the plays and that others agreed with me, go figure.

You are like a lot of others trolls that have been here and have gone in a week or so when your career either has fallen off or someone figures you out and who you really are.

I do not need to know what your name is at all. But you can look mine up and find it in Illinois that is for sure. And there have been about 20 posts (since page 5) since the last time you was on this thread. Maybe if you would stop acting like a little girl and man up, you would not worry about what I have to say to you at all. If you do not want me to have the last word, say anything to you or acknowledge your existence, then do not talk to me at all. Trust me, you are not that important.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. :)

Peace

Wow...I thought listening to my 7th graders argue about who was better at bump on the playground was tiring..."I went deeper in the playoffs than you did"..."I can run better than you can"..."you said you were gonna let it go"..."well, you said you weren't gonna comment any more"...

Holy crap.:p

When you have trolls on this site, this happens. At some point people have to be willing to state their opinion and live with it. We are not robots in anything we do. That is why some work what they do and others complain why they are not where they are. This is basic parts of life that many people will never learn and this place and the structure highlights that.

Peace