Trailblazers v. Bobcats: Block/Charge

[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.

[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.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

For NFHS I think I am going with Billy on this one. The contact is marginal to the offense but the defender is their with plenty of time in LGP prior to the shooter becoming airborne. He turns to absorb some of the contact which he is allowed by rule, but is still knocked over I don't think this constitutes marginal or incidental contact. The offense is responsible for contact once defender has LGP and remains in front of the play. I have a charge.

Would any of you be more likely to rule this a charge if it 10 feet further from the basket and a floater lay up instead of a dunk?

[ODJ]

Marginal contact because he dunked it? Aldridge turned and was still knocked to the floor. NBA, with heels on the RA line - block.
In NFHS, it's a train wreck: PC.

Go Blazers!!

[APG]

Originally Posted by ODJ

Marginal contact because he dunked it? Aldridge turned and was still knocked to the floor. NBA, with heels on the RA line - block.
In NFHS, it's a train wreck: PC.

Go Blazers!!

The mere fact that the defender is in the RA and ended up on the floor does not mean it has to be a block.

[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.