Block/Charge - Beating a Dead Horse

[Pantherdreams]

I would agree that officials tend to penalize the defense more/ give the offense the benefit of the doubt. Part of the issue is that defense so so much less dynamic in terms of movement, balance, etc. There is no manipulative on defense. That I think a lot of officials rightly or wrongly see these dynamic or agility movements the offense makes as finess moves and when contact intereferes they are more likely to call the foul because its obviously interfering with what the player is trying to do. The defense however is just in a balanced stance (in theory) competiting as hard as they can and unless they get knocked down really don't visiblly lose momentum balance they do not have have fine motor skills/footwork to be interuppted. PLay on!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think there is a general position to penalize defensive players and never give them the benefit of the doubt. I might be refereeing the defense is a problem, but I tend to think many do not have the courage to call a foul on the offense because they feel they will get more crap. Just like we penalized defensive players in the post when they were held, grabbed and pushed, but when the defense reacts to those things we call the foul on them. The same thing goes for shooters that try to go somewhere they cannot, instead of not calling anything we call fouls on the defenders.

Peace

Really? That's how you see it? I really think there are more charges called now than ever -- and many of them should be blocks.

[jeremy341a]

For me it is a charge until the defense makes it not a charge. If it is too close to call I go with the charge as I feel we shouldn't punish the defense for a possible tiny violation of the rules.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

For me it is a charge until the defense makes it not a charge. If it is too close to call I go with the charge as I feel we shouldn't punish the defense for a possible tiny violation of the rules.

I don't get this. It's okay to punish the offense for "a possible tiny violation of the rules"?

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think that we still aren't necessarily (as a collective group, not any individual) refereeing the defense -- I think many officials just take a close block/charge crash and ship it rather than evaluating each play on its own merits.

I agree about not refereeing the defense but not necessarily about the tendency for officials to just ship it.

The guy who really trained me after I had done mostly intramural ball as an undergrad student really stressed refereeing the defense. I think it is a basic principal that is critical to overall call accuracy, especially on the block/charge.

I don't think its taught enough or fully understood by a lot of officials and associations/training bodies in general.

Many officials, especially newer ones, are concentrating on the ball handler/shooter. So when there is a crash with a defender they have no idea if that defender is legal or not because they never picked them up. So the tendency is to call a block on the player that just showed up in your vision.

Take a play in transition for example. I see many of the officials I observe, especially at the sub-varsity level but too many varsity officials as well, focused on the guy with the ball. What I suggest is to literally shift your vision primarily to the defender and pick up where they are at. Getting in the habit of doing this first then you can expand your vision as you get more experience.

When people understand what refereeing the defense means its much easier to call these plays accurately.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't get this. It's okay to punish the offense for "a possible tiny violation of the rules"?

Like it or not there are plays that are too close to know exactally if the defender "got there" or not. Where they there or only 99.8% there? I feel the onus should be put on the offense as I feel they could have taken a better path to avoid the defense.

Does anyone else have a default call when it is "too close to call?"

[maven]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Like it or not there are plays that are too close to know exactally if the defender "got there" or not. Where they there or only 99.8% there? I feel the onus should be put on the offense as I feel they could have taken a better path to avoid the defense.

Does anyone else have a default call when it is "too close to call?"

No, and IMO having a default call is laziness — and I am not saying you're lazy, I have guys in my association in mind.

Know what LGP is and referee the defense. Then you'll know whether contact is a block, charge/PC, or neither.

I don't deny that some plays are close, but IMO there are far fewer of them than many officials seem to think. Usually what seems to them like a close play is one they picked up late and guessed. And even on nut-cutters I do not have a default call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Really? That's how you see it? I really think there are more charges called now than ever -- and many of them should be blocks.

I did not say in the history of the game. I think there are more charges called because of the usage of video tape. I know at the high school level here we use a lot of tape to show plays and I have seen more charges by partners without a discussion to call more. I do not even share my personal philosophy with partners in pre-game discussions, so something must be happening. I know when I started calling a charge was usually not a common thing when players went to the basket. I also think something in the culture of basketball is changing as you are hearing more "He lowered his shoulder" or "He pushed off" language you never once heard. And when watching college basketball I am saying a lot of charges. Now if you disagree, OK. I just know what I am witnessing in my personal games and watching others in my state. Then again we work a lot of 3 person and 2 person is almost never takes place at least for the varsity level. That might make a difference as we have been beating it in everyone's head who takes the call to the basket and maybe that has helped guys officiate those plays.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by maven

No, and IMO having a default call is laziness — and I am not saying you're lazy, I have guys in my association in mind.

Know what LGP is and referee the defense. Then you'll know whether contact is a block, charge/PC, or neither.

I don't deny that some plays are close, but IMO there are far fewer of them than many officials seem to think. Usually what seems to them like a close play is one they picked up late and guessed. And even on nut-cutters I do not have a default call.

+1

Having a default call or worrying about what percentages of plays you have as charges/blocks/no call is going down the wrong path that leads to essentially guessing at plays and undermines officiating IMO.

Agreed that some plays are close but overall, its really not that hard.

Know the rules and referee the defense!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by maven

No, and IMO having a default call is laziness — and I am not saying you're lazy, I have guys in my association in mind.

Know what LGP is and referee the defense. Then you'll know whether contact is a block, charge/PC, or neither.

I don't deny that some plays are close, but IMO there are far fewer of them than many officials seem to think. Usually what seems to them like a close play is one they picked up late and guessed. And even on nut-cutters I do not have a default call.

I have a default, but I find the "nut-cutters" occur less frequently the longer I ref.

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'll add this about your particular case: the offense who goes through the defender who was already falling down --- literally on his way to the floor — prior to contact is still going to gain an advantage by contact and has committed a foul.

Fouls are not just about the affect it has on the foulee but the benefit it gives to the fouler. In this case, the shooter took a path that was not available to them...a spot occupied by a defender.

Fading away from contact in now way takes away the defenders right to their spot and they are allowed to do so. It can be one way they protect themselves. Fading away is far different than flinging themselves backwards in an attempt to trick you into calling a foul.

I agree! I have had partners tell me that if the defender is falling they are not calling a charge! Oh boy!

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by maven

No, and IMO having a default call is laziness — and I am not saying you're lazy, I have guys in my association in mind.

Know what LGP is and referee the defense. Then you'll know whether contact is a block, charge/PC, or neither.

I don't deny that some plays are close, but IMO there are far fewer of them than many officials seem to think. Usually what seems to them like a close play is one they picked up late and guessed. And even on nut-cutters I do not have a default call.

How do you decide what to call on a nut-cutter?

I want to make myself clear I do not have a default call for all plays just the "nut-cutters" you describe.

[just another ref]

The only thing worse than having a default is calling a play a charge "because a similar play on the other end was called a charge."

jmo

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The only thing worse than having a default is calling a play a charge "because a similar play on the other end was called a charge."

jmo

So you say you get ever block-charge play correct then?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So you say you get every block-charge play correct then?

Peace

Did I say anything remotely close to that?