Trailblazers v. Bobcats: Block/Charge

[APG]

For the level you work:

Block or charge? Incidental/marginal contact? Does the RA apply? If it does, does the contact on the play warrant a foul?

[OKREF]

NFHS, no RA. If I called anything, it would have been a block. In my opinion, the defense turns his torso to the side. If he stays still it is a charge. He was almost trying to avoid it, and didn't get all the way sideways.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

NFHS, no RA. If I called anything, it would have been a block. In my opinion, the defense turns his torso to the side. If he stays still it is a charge. He was almost trying to avoid it, and didn't get all the way sideways.

What rules requirement does not allow the defender to turn to the side? By rule a player is allowed to absorb the contact.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What rules requirement does not allow the defender to turn to the side? By rule a player is allowed to absorb the contact.

Peace

I wold go with 4-7-2.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by OKREF

He was almost trying to avoid it, and didn't get all the way sideways.

He ain't no Shane Battier!

Stand in there and take it? Ouch! Easier said than done.

[just another ref]

NFHS

It's either a charge or nothing. Defender is there waiting in plenty of time, but steps away from the contact. I lean toward no call.

[Raymond]

No call. Contact is marginal and has no effect on the play.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No call. Contact is marginal and has no effect on the play.

I think this also. If he stays in and takes torso to torso contact I have PC.

[twocentsworth]

In NCAA-M, that's a blocking foul...secondary defender on and/or in RA. Pretty easy call.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

In NCAA-M, that's a blocking foul...secondary defender on and/or in RA. Pretty easy call.

No calls are still allowed if a secondary defender is in the RA if there is no illegal contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I wold go with 4-7-2.

As opposed to 4-23-3?

4-23-3 says:

After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:

a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.

b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.

c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, *provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.

e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

Peace

[BillyMac]

NFHS: Charge. (As an official I wouldn't have a problem with a no call. As one of the coaches in the gymnasium, I definitely would have a problem with a no call.)

[APG]

Could the RA not apply under NCAA rules because this after an offensive rebound where the dribbler made an immediate move to the basket?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Could the RA not apply under NCAA rules because this after an offensive rebound where the dribbler made an immediate move to the basket?

That is a good point, I did not even notice that part. BTW, I have nothing. I have more of a player that gets out of the way and did not affect the shot.

Peace

[APG]

I personally think this is a good no call at all levels. Defender is legal under NFHS rules, but bails out and makes what would have been illegal contact into marginal contact. NBA, this is a good no call IMO as well...RA applies since the play originated outside the lower defensive box, but even though the defender had his heels in the RA, the contact is marginal and doesn't warrant a foul.