Block/Charge RA Play: Off Rebound
 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M2FCb1pcqsU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

there is no restricted area on plays where person who gets offensive goes right to the basket because none of the defenders are considered secondary defenders.

It looks like the defender was legal. Not sure what he did wrong and it would help if the official let everyone what he called. He was way too casual and did not seem to signal anything.

Peace

Agreed. I've got a charge on this, and how is the defender not a primary defender? He's the first guy on the shooter after the rebound is gathered.

If you look at the 11 second mark, you can see, what looks like, the lead pointing at the RA and indicating, a blocking foul (in his mind) due to the RA.

NCAA Case Book (2011-2013)

A.R. 125. Player A1 attempts a shot, which bounces off the rim and is rebounded by A2. (1) Player A2 who is in the lane area immediately attempts a put back and crashes into the torso of B2, who is positioned within the restricted area; or (2) Player A2, who is located on the wing just inside the three point line, gains possession of a long rebound and immediately drives to the basket with no defender. Player A2 crashes into the torso of B2 who is located within the restricted area.

RULING: When A2 rebounds the ball and immediately makes a move to the basket, there is no secondary defender and the restricted area rule is not in effect. When illegal contact occurs it is player control/charging foul on A2. (Rule 4-61.3, 4-56, and 10-1.12)

Playing devil's advocate, perhaps the lead didn't think the move by A1 was immediate? :D

My 2 cents
 

Looks to me like the L didn't know what he had, so he blew his whistle, probably replayed it. Then quickly thought, oh he's in the RA, so I can get out of this, then points down.

Clearly he didn't know that rule and neither did I, so learned something.

Thanks for posting.

Although it appears he called it as an RA call, the defender was moving forward (bellying up)...which made it a good block call for the wrong reason.

APG thanks for posting the rule, apparently my Sheldonesque knowledge of the rules is underestimated because I think I said the exact same thing in the first reply to this post. now if you want to debate the other merits to determine offensive/defensive foul, please continue.

Unfortunately, your first post seems to be missing a few words and isn't exactly clear.

Forgive APG for not relying on your post and instead posting an actual rule. I hope your feelings weren't hurt too badly, and I hope you don't feel too disrespected to continue regaling us with your Sheldonesque rules knowledge.

Now, you're in my spot.

Yeah, the Lead definitely points to the RA. That conference almost always has an observer at its games so I'm sure this play was discussed afterwards.

I did not post the case book play because I underestimated your Sheldonesque (thumbs up for TBBT reference) knowledge of the rules. I meant no ill will posting the play...rather I posted it more to supplement and make clearer your point.

Sorry my man, I actually appreciated APG's reference. That is what we do here often. I think you need to lighten up a little bit and relax. No harm was meant to what you stated. The rule helps us get away from just our opinion of what we think the rule says.

Peace

Shall we just close the thread after you reply from now on?

Am I crazy here for thinking maybe no whistle at all is OK? Defender seems to be moving forward some and perhaps embellishes the contact a little (oh no not that again).

I agree with Cameron and Welpe. Defender moves forward just as offensive player jumps toward the basketball. Either way the play deserved a whistle and in my opinion the defensive block was the correct call.

If you pause it at the point of contact, you will see that the shooter is going at an angle INTO the defender who is being shoved at an angle backwards...so I don't get this whole "he was moving into the shooter" thing.

A block isn't a bad choice if we have to have a whistle here. But the RA has nothing to do with this play.

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.

But the defender didn't cause the contact...the shooter did.

If the defender is moving toward the player with the ball at the time of contact, then he did cause the contact.

Nope...that is not what happened here, imo.

Did the defender move forward? Yes...Was he still moving forward when the contact happened? No...the shooter jumped at an angle into the defender.

Not if he throws his shoulder into the defender. The player does not have to be LGP just to get a foul called in their favor IMO.

Peace

Causing contact isn't against the rules. In fact, shooters usually cause the contact in most blocks....but it is a block because the defender wasn't legal in some way and the shooter took advantage of it.

In this case, the defender is moving forward at the time of contact. To be moving at the time of contact, the player must have LGP. Let's assume he did obtain it....he did. The rules on maintaining it then say...

Rule 4-23-2c
The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

The defender violated this requirement and gave up LGP by doing so. He did not satisfied the requirements of guarding and thus committed the foul.

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.

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

Yes, it is a made up rule. A lot of people call a charge because a shooter/dribbler comes through with their head/shoulder down. Nothing in the book requires the shooter to be in any specific orientation (only defenders). In fact, with references to "head and shoulders" getting past the defender, that seems to imply that head and shoulders, to some degree, leading the way is expected.

Defenders must legally cut off the dribbler. If they don't, it is a block. It doesn't matter how the dribbler comes in (excluding extended limbs....push-offs with the arm or kicks with the foot)....if the defender is not legal, it is not a charge.

I guess maybe we aren't looking at the same play...the way I see this play (and yes, I just watched it again) the defender was NOT moving forward AT the time of contact. He moved forward, stopped, and then the shooter jumped into him.

Oh well...

This Fence Sitting Is Really Hurting My Buttocks ...
 

Are you positive that he stopped? I'm not, and I've looked at the video a half dozen times. I'm also not sure that he didn't stop.

I'm with you rocky, the defender did not move into the shooter. He moved his right foot after establishing LGP, but his torso never moved. Also, did A1 even get airborne before the contact? I just looked again, A1 created contact before leaving the ground.

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.

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.

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

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. ;)

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


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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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

Nothing about this play fits what you describe. The shooter didn't extend anything or impede the progress of anyone. He simply took a step towards the basket and went up to shoot where the two players collide.

Extending a shoulder is about leaning to the side to put the shoulder outside your frame into the path of an opponent. It has nothing to do with a player's shoulder going along with your torso on a drive in a basically vertical orientation. It's not like he put it down and rammed it into the defender's chest as if he were a torpedo to blast him out of the way.

And by your standard (like a fake), you can't call this anyway since extending isn't defined in the rulebook or casebook. :D

If you do not think the ball handler extended their shoulder outside of their frame and their verticality, then that is your judgment. I just disagree with that assessment and it appears a lot of others disagree with your assessment as well. I can take solace in that fact.

Peace

No, it only means he can't tell you your definition of extending is incorrect. ;)

Actually, that's exactly what he did before jumping.

He did? What "path" was the defender going to? The other basket????? I don't think he was setting a screen.

Let me make sure I understand this right. If the defender is going in any direction, the offensive player is allowed to push, use shoulder or arms to keep a defender off of them? All of that because the defender is not in LGP?

Peace

No. This shooter didn't do any of that. He was in a normal position moving to a shot. Don't try to make a new situation out of this one just to be right.

I am not trying to be right, just trying to understand your reasoning. The shooter all of a sudden went forward in an unusual manner to get contact and to shoot. That to me is a foul on the offensive player all day. Look, I am following the rule as stated which says it is illegal to do all those things I mentioned, including throwing a shoulder into their opponent (or extending their shoulder as the rulebook actually uses that language) to create space in an effort to get an open shot. And it seems that you are saying the only thing that matters is the defender is not in LGP and any contact that takes place involves them.

Peace

If you insist. That was a pretty basic an typical play to me...nothing at all unusual about it. He simply turned away from one side to the other to go up for a shot and found a defender coming at him and they collided.
If he threw his shoulder into the opponent fine, but he didn't. He made a normal move and the defender was moving in without LGP and there was normal contact...block. The offensive player may not have been perpendicular to the floor but I really doubt you call charges on all shooters who are less than 100% vertical while a defender moves into them.

I was not saying it was an unusual play. I said that his actions were unusual or not about just going to the basket to shoot. Players that shoot the basketball in that matter unless they are trying to create some space first to get an open shot. He was right under the basket, why would he go forward instead of just jump up to put the ball back into the basket? I see that often and often call it a foul on the ball handler.

You can keep saying he didn't, but most people here seem to think he did. And the only reason the official in this tape called otherwise was because of the position of the defender in the RA. If it was just a block, he does not need point to the RA to sell the call. As I have said before, this is why we get paid the big bucks and we all have to decide why we make calls. You certainly do not have to agree with my position at all (like that is unusual), I still will call this play the way I see the rules and this is a PC foul all day and twice on Sunday.

Peace

I think the better question is what did A1 do with his left shoulder before jumping to take the shot. It definitely wasn't "inside his frame" as you are claiming you saw. Or maybe you are just not being honest with yourself? ;)

It is a close, tough call to say that the defender had become stationary and obtained LGP before the contact, but I think that he did. It is not a close call to say that the shooter exploded into the chest of this defender.

PC foul

I just could not resist.
 

Is the term "exploded into the chest of the defender" used in the rulebook word for word? ;)

Peace

I still don't agree that B1 was moving towards A1 at the time of impact, HOWEVA (in my Stephen A. Smith persona), after viewing the play some more you could argue that B1 was not in his vertical plane.

I think this play is 50/50 enough that either a PC or Block could be lived with, but the official erred in pointing to the RA. On that basis it was not a correct call.

Maybe It Is Rocket Science ???
 

Wow. We've got the play on video to watch over, and over, again. We've got several seemingly competent officials, as much as I can tell from these Forum threads, and posts, over the years. We've got a few officials posting who are very familiar with the rulebook, and, yet, seem to be able to apply those rules to practical situations on the court, as much as I can tell from these Forum threads, and posts, over the years. And we've got a play that we all confidently call several times a week in our games during the season. After all of that, we can't agree on a call here. I don't know what that tells you, but it tells me that officiating basketball is not a very easy endeavor to undertake. Let's all pat ourselves on the back, and ask for a raise.

No, but neither is "you must go with a blarge if opposing signals are made."

It is an interpretation in the casebook. We have been over this before, you just have decided not to accept that interpretation.

Peace

Okay everyone, take a drink.

Well, to be fair, it is about as clearly defined as faking a foul. :D

Nope. But if you want to believe that, go right ahead.

Peace

Double fouls are clearly defined.

Double fouls are clearly defined. Being required to report a double foul when conflicting signals are made, even if one offficial is willing/anxious to yield, is not stated ANYWHERE.

Multiple fouls are clearly defined, by both rule and case play, but nobody likes multiple fouls............:rolleyes:


Back to the OP: This is not about rule wording or interpretation, it is just a question of a really close call.

Three points of view on a play like this:

"Could have gone either way."

"Good call, ref!"

"The ref screwed us!!"

Close it is and I accept a different judgement, yet many people kept trying to support their opinion with coach-speak non-rules or incorrect rules.

A blarge is a double foul in which one official calls a foul on A1 and another official calls a foul on B1, instead of one official calling both fouls. :cool:

Sez who? By the logic of the blarge "rule" if an official anticipates, then signals a block, then immediately realizes this is the wrong call, he should be required to report a double foul.

Why are people entertaining JAR on the subject of the blarge? :confused:

I think the original point was that things are accepted as fact that are not stated in so many words in the book(s).


Having said that, I don't think that was the problem in this thread. The principles of block/charge are simple enough. The question of a description of the contact itself (extended an arm, exploded into the chest, etc.) are secondary to the question of whether the defender had LGP or not.


Having said all that, the OP is a prime candidate for a blarge, which, without question, would have been the wrong "call".

Exactly. Silly to even have this conversation since he always tries to bring this into unrelated conversations.

Peace

Not all vernacular is used in the rulebook, nor would any reasonable person expect it to be used. That is also why there is a casebook to tell us how to interpret the rules. Not every definition is clear as crystal to tell us how it can be applied. If all rules written were clear, then you would not need a casebook in the first place. And some rules or interpretations are not in the rulebook at all. Like the rule where the casebook talks about giving a T for a delay tactic with less than 5 seconds on the clock. That is an interpretation that is not anywhere in the rulebook to call a technical foul for that specific act.

Peace

Because they're trying to get me drunk.

Watch an old game with Welmer working and play that drinking game...

I could do that, but I wouldn't feel nearly as self-righteous, and that's half the fun.