Block/Charge End of Quarter

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Note the entire phrase..."into the path". Movement itself is not necessarily illegal, it is where the movement takes the player.

Exactly. Movement within the path is allowable, IMO.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you sure about that? Is that really what the rule says?

"He has the right to land on another place on the playing court provided that the landing place and the direct path between the take-off and landing place is not already occupied by an opponent(s) at the time of take-off.
If a player has taken off and landed but his momentum causes him to contact an opponent who has taken a legal guarding position beyond the landing place, the jumper is responsible for the contact.
An opponent may not move into the path of a player after that player has jumped into the air."

As I read this he cannot move into a position (move into the path) of a player after the player has jumped in the air that the player could rightfully land in or pass through.


Nope...it is not about the rebounding advantage. It is about the advantage the shooter gained by taking a path to the shot that is through the defender...even if it is after the release.

He didn't take that path to the shot. He's release his shot and still is airborne but will not be disadvantaged by contact.

If a shot was blocked into the 3rd throw and then the collision happened that was caused by the defense would you call that on on the defense? Its about the nature of the play. If their is contact at any point but doesn't gain/create advantage/disadvantage then we no call. Isn't that the nature of no call? The contact isn't helping/hurting either players ability to do anything.

[Adam]

If the defender ends up on the floor, that's displacement worthy of a foul. He's blocked that path and the shooter is obligated to not run him over. The pending dead ball does not change that. If I let this go as a pattern, I'd be working remedial ball for two years.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

He didn't take that path to the shot. He's release his shot and still is airborne but will not be disadvantaged by contact.

If a shot was blocked into the 3rd throw and then the collision happened that was caused by the defense would you call that on on the defense? Its about the nature of the play. If their is contact at any point but doesn't gain/create advantage/disadvantage then we no call. Isn't that the nature of no call? The contact isn't helping/hurting either players ability to do anything.

Yes I would, if he was still airborne. He is a shooter until he comes back to the floor. If the defense is there and has a LGP prior to the shooter going airborne, and the shooter plows him, I have PC.

When watching the slow motion, it really looks like the defensive player moved into the path of the shooter. However at full speed it looks like a PC. If the ref calls a block on that exact same play, we have 2 shots.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Shoot the FTs with no one on the line. Teams must remain at their bench areas until the half ends (when the second FT ends).

How do you decide when time goes back on the clock and when it doesn't?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by APG

Block or charge or no call...how would you handle at whatever various levels you work (including if you're able to use replay)?

Block. Defender moves laterally into the shooter's path after he leaves the floor. Without the lateral movement, there would be very little contact on the play.

If you're officiating the defender and not ballhawking on the shooter, it's not a difficult call.

[APG]

For those wondering, the officials in the clip went the replay to verify that 1.) the foul occurred before the expiration of time, or 2.) that if the foul occurred after the horn, that the ball was released before 0:00.00 on the clock. After review, they determined the foul occurred with .3 on the clock. As both teams had already gone to their locker rooms, they came back out after halftime, put .3 on the clock...inbounded to end the 2nd quarter, then started the 3rd quarter immediately.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

How do you decide when time goes back on the clock and when it doesn't?

If someone on the crew sees time on the clock at or after the whistle, you put that on. If not, you don't.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by APG

For those wondering, the officials in the clip went the replay to verify that 1.) the foul occurred before the expiration of time, or 2.) that if the foul occurred after the horn, that the ball was released before 0:00.00 on the clock. After review, they determined the foul occurred with .3 on the clock. As both teams had already gone to their locker rooms, they came back out after halftime, put .3 on the clock...inbounded to end the 2nd quarter, then started the 3rd quarter immediately.

Common sense does exist at times.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

He didn't take that path to the shot.

He was going to get hit whether he moved or not. He was hit square in the chest and had only move his torso a few inches...no where near enough make the difference in contact or none. It may be a tough call but don't bail the shooter out just because the defender shifts...the rules only require that the defender be in the path and he met that requirement. It's an easy out that too many officials take when the defender twitches or moves a bit but it isn't by rule.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

He's release his shot and still is airborne but will not be disadvantaged by contact. If a shot was blocked into the 3rd throw and then the collision happened that was caused by the defense would you call that on on the defense? Its about the nature of the play. If their is contact at any point but doesn't gain/create advantage/disadvantage then we no call. Isn't that the nature of no call? The contact isn't helping/hurting either players ability to do anything.

It is about the fact that the shooter elected to take a path that was occupied in order to get a more desirable shot than the defense was allowing. The advantage gained was in the path taken to the shot that carried him through the shooter.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Common sense does exist at times.

Common sense tells you to finish the 2nd quarter after halftime?
I don't like the way that the crew did this. Why did they allow the teams to leave before finishing their video review of the play?

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Block. Defender moves laterally into the shooter's path after he leaves the floor. Without the lateral movement, there would be very little contact on the play.

If you're officiating the defender and not ballhawking on the shooter, it's not a difficult call.

+1 defender does a quick hop to his right

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

How do you decide when time goes back on the clock and when it doesn't?

Without replay you need to decide whether it was "a foul so close to the end of the period that the clock couldn't be stopped" or "a timing error" (or whatever the specific rules wordings are). There used to be a "1 second lag time" rule in the books.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He was going to get hit whether he moved or not. He was hit square in the chest and had only move his torso a few inches...no where near enough make the difference in contact or none. It may be a tough call but don't bail the shooter out just because the defender shifts...the rules only require that the defender be in the path and he met that requirement. It's an easy out that too many officials take when the defender twitches or moves a bit but it isn't by rule.


It is about the fact that the shooter elected to take a path that was occupied in order to get a more desirable shot than the defense was allowing. The advantage gained was in the path taken to the shot that carried him through the shooter.

I'm not sure we are going to agree on this one. I feel like (based on what I'm seeing in slo mo) that the defender moved his feet once the player was airborne to get into his path - where he wasn't previous with his feet and chest. That being said at game speed it looked good by the defender.

I understand why the contact and occured and who you are saying is responsible. If the same actions took place but the defense was much larger then the offense and their was little to no displacement. Then you would most likely no call it in any siutation. Almost certainly at the end of the quarter. In this case there is significant displacment but the displacement doesn't gain an advantage or put at a disadvantage the way it normally would because of the clock situation. I'm not arguing to routinely make a pattern of no calling this, but that in isolation the clock situation creates no call as it has no immediate impact on the play.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm not sure we are going to agree on this one. I feel like (based on what I'm seeing in slo mo) that the defender moved his feet once the player was airborne to get into his path - where he wasn't previous with his feet and chest. That being said at game speed it looked good by the defender.

I agree. At super slow motion, you see the defense move slightly to his right, however at full speed I have no problem with how this played was called.