Block/Charge RA Play: Off Rebound

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm sure somebody could conjure up something if that's what side of the argument they wanted to be on.

We all know it's right after the "protect the shooter" clause and before the "tie goes to the runner" section.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And if you back it up a few more frames, you'll see the defender stepping forward to that point of contact. The defender started with his left foot coming down near the shooters left (pivot) foot with his (the defender) right foot trailing. He steps forward towards the shooter bringing his right foot ahead of his left at which time the two collide.

I only watched the video once or twice, but to be honest, if I have to break it down frame by frame to see the defender moving ever-so-slightly forward into the shooter, I'd be comfortable with a PC call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I only watched the video once or twice, but to be honest, if I have to break it down frame by frame to see the defender moving ever-so-slightly forward into the shooter, I'd be comfortable with a PC call.

I had a block in real time for the reasons I listed. I only watched in slow-mo after rocky mentioned that, in a freeze frame, the shooter was moving. No matter how long I froze it, nothing moved in mine.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you deliberately, and with specific concentration, stick your foot backwards or forwards in an effort to not move your torso, it is pretty hard to do. In the course of the play, I doubt the player would have done so. If you're agreeing that the player moved his foot forward, you're pretty much agreeing he was moving forward.

No, I'm saying your absolutes about what a person's body does when moving one foot are nonsense. I can move my foot all day long without it affecting my torso

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what does A1 being airborne have to do with anything? Moving forward at the time of contact is prohibited no matter the status of the opponent. The status of the shooter (airborne or not) is irrelevant to this case.

The ONLY question that has to be answered is whether the defender was moving forward at the time of contact or not.

His right foot is replanted before contact so the only way it would be a block is if A1 had been airborne.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No, I'm saying your absolutes about what a person's body does when moving one foot are nonsense. I can move my foot all day long without it affecting my torso

Yes, but you have to think about doing it. In the course of playing basketball, it wouldn't be a natural movement.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

His right foot is replanted before contact so the only way it would be a block is if A1 had been airborne.

That is your opinion, and perhaps accurate. I had his torso still shifting forward at the time of contact. As such, even if his foot was down, it is irrelevant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But that is not what we're talking about in this play. There was no shove, clearout, or thrown shoulder. The shooter merely stepped towards the basket and went up. The defender stepped into him and committed a foul.

For that matter, show me where "throwing a shoulder" is defined. I don't recall seeing that in the rulebook.

Well I am not saying the term is in the rulebook. But the actions that explain what you can or cannot do are in the rulebook. The guy threw his body forward to try to get space IMO. That is a foul on the dribbler despite how legal a defender is or not. Now this is a judgment call, but that action I saw is consistent of that. LGP is about movement to cut a path off from a ball handler. That does not give the dribbler or ball handler the right to create space because the defender might not be legal at some point.

Peace

[rockyroad]

We have to judge who created or caused the contact in some of these plays. In this play, the contact was created by the offensive player jumping into the defender, imo. It really is that simple sometimes - again, imo.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

We have to judge who created or caused the contact in some of these plays. In this play, the contact was created by the offensive player jumping into the defender, imo. It really is that simple sometimes - again, imo.

I totally agree. But some people have to worry about every specific wording in the rulebook and forget that many of what we do is judgment based on our experience and understanding of those rules.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I totally agree. But some people have to worry about every specific wording in the rulebook and forget that many of what we do is judgment based on our experience and understanding of those rules.

Peace

There are extremes both ways...the "rulebook officials" and the ones who don't bother to get into the books because they "don't need to know that stuff." I think the best officials are the ones who can blend the two...had a former NBA official at a camp tell me "Don't be a rulebook official. They don't last very long. But you better know the rules you are basing your judgement calls on or you won't last long either."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

There are extremes both ways...the "rulebook officials" and the ones who don't bother to get into the books because they "don't need to know that stuff." I think the best officials are the ones who can blend the two...had a former NBA official at a camp tell me "Don't be a rulebook official. They don't last very long. But you better know the rules you are basing your judgement calls on or you won't last long either."

I have said that term here and got ripped for saying "Don't be a rulebook official."

All that has ever meant to me is when guys are so stuck on specific language that they do not understand what the intent of the rule is for or why it was created. Or they forget there are other elements of rules that are stated. And when an official reads a rule and calls the slightest violation of that rule that no one but them sees, that is being a rulebook official to me. Our job should be to call obvious violations and fouls that take place, not just some minor contact and claim a foul was made, but forget that the rules on incidental contact also are listed in that same rulebook.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Am I crazy here for thinking maybe no whistle at all is OK?

You wouldn't be alone. I can't go with a charge, because defender lost any LGP when he was moving in, but I'm not crazy about a block, either, because the shooter caused most of the contact. Still, there was probably enough contact to hinder the shot.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, but you have to think about doing it. In the course of playing basketball, it wouldn't be a natural movement.

...

True, almost akin to running backwards and officiating at the same time.


Also, on this play A1 initially moves away from the basket and the defender; B1's movement were consistent in maintaining his LGP based on the direction A1 was going. A1 then changes direction and then puts his shoulder into B1 just after B1 replants his right foot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

You wouldn't be alone. I can't go with a charge, because defender lost any LGP when he was moving in, but I'm not crazy about a block, either, because the shooter caused most of the contact. Still, there was probably enough contact to hinder the shot.

It looks to me that the defender stops moving prior to contact, thus regaining LGP. It's close enough, though (obviously), that I can see any of the three options being valid here.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have said that term here and got ripped for saying "Don't be a rulebook official."
Peace

It is a good saying and philosophy, when properly used. When it is used to justify a call in a way that is not supported by the rules, it is nothing more than a canard.

This play is about LGP and nothing else...did the defender have it or not. We can certainly disagree about whether the defender had it or not but to claim it is about anything else (i.e., who created contact, made space, etc.) is nothing more than a way to try to justify a call when you can't justify it by the rules. This is not a 1 in a million situation. This is a bread and butter call. This is not a "rulebook official" situation. It is about basic definitions. What is LGP.

The defender was in the path and had two feet down, there is no question about that....the defender had LGP. The ONLY question is whether he legally moved while maintaining it. Movement is allowed but not if it is toward the opponent at the time of contact. That is pretty basic part of the definition. The player was either moving forward or he wasn't. If so, it is a foul on the defense. There is no other factor to consider. What the offense is doing is irrelevant (unless it is about something other than block/charge). We can certainly disagree about whether he was moving forward or not at the wrong time, but, there are no restrictions on the movement of the player with the ball if the defender is not in LGP. It is the defender's sole responsibility to be in the path legally and to be moving legally if they are moving. That is why we referee the defense. What they do or don't do determines who the foul is on. Disagree about whether the defender is moving forward if you wish, I can accept that. But stick to rules-based reasoning rather than some cliche.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a good saying and philosophy, when properly used. When it is used to justify a call that is not supported by the rules, it is weak.

Well unlike your friend, the rules do cover this under 10-6-1.

Rule says, "A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by bending his or her body into other than a normal position, nor use any rough tactics."

Not sure what I said was not supported by rule. I would think "throwing a shoulder" is the exact same thing as extending a shoulder to create space or to go through an opponent.

And it does not say that this is special to an player without the ball. I also just used a description, not trying to suggest like someone else that my words were word perfect in the rulebook.

Peace