Celtics/Sixers Game 7

[BktBallRef]

There's no way the defender gets to the spot first. He's still moving to the spot when there's contact. That's a block.

This is why there's so much controversy regarding so many charging fouls being called. Got too many guys out there who love to punch.

[JRutledge]

Where in the rulebook is there any conversation or wording about getting to a spot? The defender was backing up and had a legal position. And the controversy about charges are from media people and coaches (which is the only people on the NCAA committee). So who cares about a controversy that has still not be endorsed or supported by the supervisor of officials. If he does and he will if he thinks so, then that will be a reasonable point of view. But without bringing in that part of this discussion, the defender was backing away and took it in the chest. That is a charge all day in my book and I have a NBA official that gives presentations in my association all the time and is perplexed that more charges are not called even in the NBA.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where in the rulebook is there any conversation or wording about getting to a spot? The defender was backing up and had a legal position. And the controversy about charges are from media people and coaches (which is the only people on the NCAA committee). So who cares about a controversy that has still not be endorsed or supported by the supervisor of officials. If he does and he will if he thinks so, then that will be a reasonable point of view. But without bringing in that part of this discussion, the defender was backing away and took it in the chest. That is a charge all day in my book and I have a NBA official that gives presentations in my association all the time and is perplexed that more charges are not called even in the NBA.

Peace

Curious how y'all think he had 'legal position'.

I think that's why Tony (and me, for that matter) have a block on this play.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Curious how y'all think he had 'legal position'.

I don't think he (defender) did. That's been my contention since seeing the play live.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Curious how y'all think he had 'legal position'.

I think that's why Tony (and me, for that matter) have a block on this play.

He was straight in front of the dribbler (in the path), had two feed on the floor and was facing the dribbler the moment the dribbler beat the first defender...between 10 and 11 seconds in in the video replay as the dribbler stepped with his right foot and lifted his left. LGP obtained.

The dribbler veers to the left and the defender shifts right to stay in front of him the entire time. The dribbler take two more steps and collides with the torso of the defender as they're both shifting together.

In fact, the primary contact is on the defenders LEFT side...indicating the defender definitely stayed in the dribbler's path.

If the contact had been on the defender's right side, that would probably mean the defender would not have remained in the path and would have lost LGP and would have needed to reobtain it. He would have been moving into the dribber in such a case...for a block. But that isn't what happened.

[canuckrefguy]

Sorry fellas - watched it again. And again. I disagree that (a) defender was straight in front of the dribbler and (b) had both feet on the floor for LGP. Also disagree that any movement was "in the path" (definitely sideways). Not saying it wasn't a bang-bang play, but neither is it as obvious as you're making it out to be.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Sorry fellas - watched it again. And again. I disagree that (a) defender was straight in front of the dribbler and (b) had both feet on the floor for LGP.
Really?

If he isn't straight in front of him with two feet down, I guess that is an impossible requirement. The still shot by JetMetFan above , or just slightly before that when the dribbler is turning his path from right to left, crossing the defender, is exactly that. Nothing says he has to have his feet down and be in his path for anything more than an instant....he doesn't have to be SET in his path as the dribbler comes at him as it seems you and a couple of others are implying.

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Also disagree that any movement was "in the path" (definitely sideways). Not saying it wasn't a bang-bang play, but neither is it as obvious as you're making it out to be.

Uh, sideways is in the path if the path is shifting sideways.


Your can certainly disagree with the conclusion but your descriptions of what the player is required to do to get and maintain LGP don't match the rules.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where in the rulebook is there any conversation or wording about getting to a spot? The defender was backing up and had a legal position. And the controversy about charges are from media people and coaches (which is the only people on the NCAA committee). So who cares about a controversy that has still not be endorsed or supported by the supervisor of officials. If he does and he will if he thinks so, then that will be a reasonable point of view. But without bringing in that part of this discussion, the defender was backing away and took it in the chest. That is a charge all day in my book and I have a NBA official that gives presentations in my association all the time and is perplexed that more charges are not called even in the NBA.

Peace

Under NBA rules, the defender must get the torso directly in the path of the offensive player and must beat the defender to the spot. If he's there late or both players arrive at the same time, it's a blocking foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Under NBA rules, the defender must get the torso directly in the path of the offensive player and must beat the defender to the spot. If he's there late or both players arrive at the same time, it's a blocking foul.

OK, then under NBA rules was this a blocking foul? It sounds by your description this is still an offensive foul from my understanding.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, then under NBA rules was this a blocking foul? It sounds by your description this is still an offensive foul from my understanding.

Peace

I personally thought offensive foul, but the play is so close, that I would have been okay with a blocking foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I personally thought offensive foul, but the play is so close, that I would have been okay with a blocking foul.

All conversations I have had with a former NBA officials the basic rules they apply are the same. And in this case it appears nothing should be called but an offensive foul. I will ask my friend and see what he thinks. I am going to see him in a week for sure and I will ask his take on this play and report it back to you.

Peace

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All conversations I have had with a former NBA officials the basic rules they apply are the same. And in this case it appears nothing should be called but an offensive foul. I will ask my friend and see what he thinks. I am going to see him in a week for sure and I will ask his take on this play and report it back to you.

Peace

You're going to ask a former NBA official to review a call by a current NBA official? How do you think he'll respond? I'll save you the time. He's going to concur: "they made the right call...charging".

Do you really think he's going to go against any call a current crew in the post season makes, especially if he know's you are going to take that opinion back to a public discussion board?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's no way the defender gets to the spot first. He's still moving to the spot when there's contact. That's a block.

This is why there's so much controversy regarding so many charging fouls being called. Got too many guys out there who love to punch.

Continuing to be moving is not relevant.

He had a spot in the path a long time before contact. After that, movement is legal to stay in the path.