Ok...I can see that. But did he not get back over there in the path (I am talking before the contact) and have both feet on the floor facing the opponent? And his movement was diagonal away from the shooter...

I thought he had both feet on the floor, in the path of the shooter before he went airborne. Yes, he moved while the shooter was in the air and centered the contact.

I explained why I think it is a PC in the very first response...again, the defender has LGP and is moving at a diagonal backwards from the shooter, and he takes the contact in the chest. I still think he was there before the shorter jumped after watching the video three times.

That is more or less what I see too.

He had LGP but the shooter changed to a new path and the defender was no longer in it and had to shift to get back in the path. The defender was jumping sideways (and backwards) trying to reestablish position but didn't get both feet back down to regain LGP before the shooter was airborne.

I agree completely.

Wait a minute here...according to NASO we aren't supposed to be discussing this! :mad:

What do unicorn fishes have to do with anything?

And They Don't Need A Warrant ...
 

... and the penalty for doing so is quite severe.

I watched it three times and have no problem with the L's call. Two feet on the floor, back pedaling, hit outside the RA. To me, he established LGP and never lost it. I get that others disagree.

Just watched it again and I would have to go with the PC as well. Watching the feet of both players closely..the defender mirrors the shooter pretty well.

But with the restricted area, I thought that had to be a secondary defender to be an automatic block, no? Wouldn't he be considered the primary defender on the play?

Awfully close, even in slo-mo. I can understand the call at regular speed....Looks like a PC, but I could also live with a block. Good call in that he sold it well.

Any out-numbered fast break all defenders are considered secondary

Pretty hard to see from this angle imo. Regardless of the correctness of the call I have two points:
- C should never signal blocking here and just leave it to L to avoid a blarge like this.
- L definitely has some guts making that call. I think quite a number of officials would call that a block where it should've been a charge, simply because of the dunk.

I agree with your first point and completely, 100%, unequivocally, wholeheartedly (you get the point) disagree with point #2. We don't call blocks simply because it was a "nice" play.