What's the call and why?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Wanting2Learn

I'm not trying to find some one to say that it was a bad call or calls. I'm trying to learn why the calls were made so while I am watching a game I can see it from a different perspective other than what I perceive to be the call.
I will take your suggestions of looking up the definition of a LGP and the rules for a charge and a block.
Thanks for all the responses

So you're telling us that 5 times in the game a stationary player with arms straight up was called for blocking?

1. Was she facing the offensive player?

2. Do you have a child on the team that got the short end of the calls?

3. Were there any similar bad calls made against the other team?

[Terrapins Fan]

Join a local board, go to classes, get on the floor and make the call.

That will help you to learn and will give you a different perspective. JMO.

[Camron Rust]

Don't be too critical of him....I've seen it several times in one game from "trained" officials. He may not be wrong.

[BillyMac]

A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he or she has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards or sideways to maintain a legal guarding position and may even have one or both feet off the playing court when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. If the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which is a blocking foul.

[DKremer]

It sounds a bit like there might be a principal of verticality question and I'm curious about two things: (1) how truly straight up & down the defender's arms were in each situation, and (2) what "straight" really means in these situations. I ask because my observation is that virtually no defender has arms/hands straight - perpendicular to the floor on these plays. The angle seems to be 15-20 degrees even for a defender who has not moved hands/arms down & back up as in BktBallRef's post but has actually held still. When I look in the mirror, I realize that my hands/arms are not perpendicular to the floor unless/until, as I raise them, I place some strain (minor but appreciable) on my shoulder joints. Is anyone able to give this any precision beyond you know it when you see it?

[SAJ]

Did any of the plays involve an airborne shooter?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by DKremer

It sounds a bit like there might be a principal of verticality question and I'm curious about two things: (1) how truly straight up & down the defender's arms were in each situation, and (2) what "straight" really means in these situations. I ask because my observation is that virtually no defender has arms/hands straight - perpendicular to the floor on these plays. The angle seems to be 15-20 degrees even for a defender who has not moved hands/arms down & back up as in BktBallRef's post but has actually held still. When I look in the mirror, I realize that my hands/arms are not perpendicular to the floor unless/until, as I raise them, I place some strain (minor but appreciable) on my shoulder joints. Is anyone able to give this any precision beyond you know it when you see it?

Vertical does NOT mean perpendicular to the floor in this context. It means up in a natural position that is not extended out and over their opponent.

[DKremer]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Vertical does NOT mean perpendicular to the floor in this context. It means up in a natural position that is not extended out and over their opponent.

Thanks for your reply. I believe that & trust that it is the only way that verticality can be applied in a raised arms/hands situation. The reason I bring it up is that I so often see players stand there with their hands in the air, maintaining the posture they were in when they were called for a foul a couple seconds before & that posture is clearly leaning or angled - over what was the opponent's upward path. I think many times they are honestly puzzled as opposed to disingenuous about the call. There seems to be a real disconnect between what they perceive they were doing & the true angle of their arms. My sense of this is that the disconnect is qualitatively different than, say, a block-charge disagreement or a player not realizing he's moved his pivot foot. My conclusion - working conclusion or I wouldn't ask the question - is that the rule in this situation requires a defender to have arms/hands up in almost an unnatural (perhaps "exaggerated" is the word) manner in order to be in compliance. And it makes me wonder whether the rule essentially asks for too much from a defender. So, as a practical matter, how much leeway do you give a defender in these situations? Is it purely a judgment call or do you have some kind of more specific angle guideline that might be useful to players? Just trying to coach the kids to defend without fouling, you understand. Many thanks.

PS
Philosophically, and semi-ridiculously, why should verticality be required in this situation at all: why shouldn't a defender be able to close off the space above just as he can close off space horizontally by taking a charge? Does it just give too much advantage to a taller player?