You make the call!

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There was no C in that game...it was 2-man.

My mistake. I thought NCAA when I saw the college court.

That being the case...the L made that call outside of his PCA which explains why, IMO, he got it wrong. The T should have had that play from start to finish given where the contact took place. The L didn't even give him a chance to make the call.

[BktBallRef]

2 man or 3 man, I absolutely hate the L reaching across the lane to make a block charge call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My mistake. I thought NCAA when I saw the college court.

That being the case...the L made that call outside of his PCA which explains why, IMO, he got it wrong. The T should have had that play from start to finish given where the contact took place. The L didn't even give him a chance to make the call.

(BTW, I'm the L)

Correct call or not, the L, whether 2-man or 3-man, has secondary defenders coming from the L's primary. It is not (to a point) where the contact occurs but where the defender came from. That defender came from the center of the lane to help with contact occurring just 1 step outside of the lane.

Once the shooter got around the primary defender, which is the T's all the way to the shot (even into the Lead's PCA), the T would have to acquire the secondary defender coming from the lead's primary...which is generally considered to be unreliable and why the L is expected to cover help defenders coming into the play from their primary. Often, as it is the case, the T's view and ability to see the secondary defender coming across the lane is at least partially blocked by both the primary defender and the offensive player the secondary defender left.

BTW, the trail didn't have a charge on that play when we talked about it at halftime....for the reasons above. He didn't pick up the secondary defender in time to know when or how he got there....he was expecting me to know.

It would be less so in 3-man since the C would have been 10-15 ft. closer to the endline than the T was on that play and would have had a better view.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

(BTW, I'm the L)

Correct call or not, the L, whether 2-man or 3-man, has secondary defenders coming from the L's primary. It is not (to a point) where the contact occurs but where the defender came from. That defender came from the center of the lane to help with contact occurring just 1 step outside of the lane.

Once the shooter got around the primary defender, which is the T's all the way to the shot (even into the Lead's PCA), the T would have to acquire the secondary defender coming from the lead's primary...which is generally considered to be unreliable and why the L is expected to cover help defenders coming into the play from their primary. Often, as it is the case, the T's view and ability to see the secondary defender coming across the lane is at least partially blocked by both the primary defender and the offensive player the secondary defender left.

BTW, the trail didn't have a charge on that play when we talked about it at halftime....for the reasons above. He didn't pick up the secondary defender in time to know when or how he got there....he was expecting me to know.

It would be less so in 3-man since the C would have been 10-15 ft. closer to the endline than the T was on that play and would have had a better view.

I agree, Camron. The L is expected to pick up the secondary defender(s) in a situation like this and make the call just as you did. My comment/question is why were you backing away from the play? With six players ballside it is acceptable, in fact, strongly encouraged in the NFHS manual that the Lead come across to ballside to obtain a better angle even before the ball gets that low to the endline just as we would in 3-man.

[JugglingReferee]

I've got a PC foul, if anything. The video quality is quite poor.

[johnny d]

camron,

why did you think it was a block, and after watching the tape do you still think it was a block?

[rwest]

It appears the defense got there in time and there was enough contact for a call. PC.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

camron,

why did you think it was a block, and after watching the tape do you still think it was a block?

I had a block despite him getting his feet down in the path because I felt his torso was still moving forward at the time of contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

I agree, Camron. The L is expected to pick up the secondary defender(s) in a situation like this and make the call just as you did. My comment/question is why were you backing away from the play? With six players ballside it is acceptable, in fact, strongly encouraged in the NFHS manual that the Lead come across to ballside to obtain a better angle even before the ball gets that low to the endline just as we would in 3-man.

If the clip were a bit longer, you'd see how it all developed (A friend made the clip for me...I have the DVD but have never captured short clips form one...need to figure out how).

At 2:06, the ball was FT line extended at the sideline on the L's side. So I was out at the 3-point line extended.

At 2:05, it was passed across the top and then down to the corner on the T's side by 2:04....very quick ball movement.

I was starting to cross the lane when that player drove the ball back into the key near the upper FT lane space. So I backed out as the play was coming to my side.

At 2:01, he reversed it back to the wing where the player immediately drove into contact at 1:59.

Being across the floor would have been ideal but the way the play shifted around, I'm not sure anyone else would have been there unless they were frantically moving all over the place.

It certainly looks a whole lot more like a charge on the video than it did on the floor from my angle. I'm not entirely convinced, however, that the video angle is right to conclude I was simply wrong (it was for a couple other calls ). It certainly isn't looking through the play any more than I was. I don't think you can tell if the defender was moving forward or not from that video angle...which is why I had judged it a block. I'd love to have a view looking from the endline on the side where the contact occurred....where I would have ideally been.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the clip were a bit longer, you'd see how it all developed (A friend made the clip for me...I have the DVD but have never captured short clips form one...need to figure out how).

At 2:06, the ball was FT line extended at the sideline on the L's side. So I was out at the 3-point line extended.

At 2:05, it was passed across the top and then down to the corner on the T's side by 2:04....very quick ball movement.

I was starting to cross the lane when that player drove the ball back into the key near the upper FT lane space. So I backed out as the play was coming to my side.

At 2:01, he reversed it back to the wing where the player immediately drove into contact at 1:59.

Being across the floor would have been ideal but the way the play shifted around, I'm not sure anyone else would have been there unless they were frantically moving all over the place.

It certainly looks a whole lot more like a charge on the video than it did on the floor from my angle. I'm not entirely convinced, however, that the video angle is right to conclude I was simply wrong (it was and a couple other calls ). It certainly isn't looking through the play any more than I was. I don't think you can tell if the defender was moving forward or not from that video angle...which is why I had judged it a block. I'd love to have a view looking from the endline on the side where the contact occurred....where I would have ideally been.

Where you should've been with a third official, right?

Ideally, Oregon would join the 21st century and give you folks that help. With a third official, someone would've been there.

[ballgame99]

I had a PC all the way based on first glance. And yes, that floor is a crime against basketball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Where you should've been with a third official, right?

Assuming the start of the play was the same, I don't think so. I think any L would have backed out of crossing just the same in a 3-person game since the ball was being driven into the lane.

What would be different, however, is that the C would have been at the FT line extended or lower rather than several steps above the top of the key and I would have expected the C to have the better view of that play than a T.

[Adam]

From what I see here, I'd have a PC, but if you think his body was still moving into contact, I'm not convinced you were wrong.

[Raymond]

So they afford to utilize U of O's court, but not pay for a 3rd official?

I have a PC. Since it's only 2-man Camron has no choice to come over and make a call from across the paint b/c the Trail is in no position to see the play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So they afford to utilize U of O's court, but not pay for a 3rd official?

In this case, it is not directly a money argument.

The argument for 2-man in the tourney is that not all officials work 3-man. No HS games are 3-man in Oregon...only college officials would have 3-man experience. Of the tourney officials, some are also college officials, but not all, particularly at the middle and lower level tourneys. So, they're not going to throw a new system on HS officials at a HS tourney. That would be worse than what you give up by only using 2.

So, yes, they use bigger courts to hold all of the people that want to buy tickets but use 2-man because of consistency.

It does become a cost issue when you consider that to have officials ready to work post-season games with 3-man crews, you need to have them working 3-man crews throughout the season.