Another blarge - Missouri State at Creighton
 

Blarge video - YouTube

Someone can embed it if they want.

Watch the Lead and Center. I think the Lead actually got it right. And the video doesn't show it, but no one notices the Lead's PC signal and they went with the block.

They also had an odd play happen later in the first half. Creighton's center was fouled right under the basket going up for a shot, but as he lifted his elbows up he caught a Missouri State player on the chin. They reviewed it for quite a while and got him for a Flagrant 1. They shot the two foul shots for the common foul and went to the other end for the F1 shots followed by a throw-in for Missouri State. Wish I would have gotten a video for that one too. It is on Fox Sports Midwest so I'm not sure if the video wizards can do that. It was between 1:10 and 2:00 in the first half I think.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ywJGZJQW6mo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why does the lead have a whistle on this? I feel that this is C's to live and die with... The lead should have probably been pinching the paint here as well, if not getting to the other side as well. I have a charge, fwiw.

From that video, I have PC.

Two things. Isn't that the C's call since it originated in his primary? Second. That is a PC all the way.

Is the C pointing to the RA after the call? It appears so, but the defender wasn't even close to it.

C's primary, incorrect call.

first, i have player control foul.

second, in ncaam, lead has primary on all drives to the basket when contact occurs inside free throw line and lane lines. especially when contact is with a secondary defender, as was the case in this play. at this level, this was leads call all the way, c should have had his fist up.

also, it is clear in the video that l was watching the secondary defender whereas c was not, which is why l got the call right and c didnt.

This may be true, however the contact looks like it is outside the lane. One foot barely in the lane. Still don't understand what the C was seeing.

One foot in the lane counts for a 3 second violation. Why not this?
Center blew this one in several ways.

One foot in the lane at the time of contact but he came from a position entirely in the lane.

Some say that a defender arriving at a play from the L's primary is the L's responsibility while a defender coming in with the drive would be the C's.

Additionally, you could have drawn a straight line from the C, through the offense and to the defender...not the best of angles (but not much better from the L either).

No...he's pointing at the player who fouled.

How'd they handle the blarge?

I think the collision was high enough and far enough over (B1's right foot was outside the lane) that the C should have still been the primary. The Lead had another defender in his area. Also the C should have had a clear look at the defender sliding over because the primary defender abandoned the play.

I don't subscribe to all secondary defenders in the paint belonging to the Lead.

The C should have had a good enough look not to need help on the play. And I said earlier, it should have been a PC.

L could have pinched the paint to get a better angle.

Neither one had a fist. Duh :(

The pointing is really unnecessary then. It's not like there are more than 2 bodies on the floor.

I don't think anyone on the Missouri State bench saw the Lead give the PC signal. He put his arm down pretty quickly when he saw the C with the block signal. They acted like it didn't happen and went with the block.

I know we're talking about the L and C here, but the T has a great look at this play if you pause it at the point of contact. Not saying he should come in and get it, but he has a good look.

I don't prescribe to all secondary defenders in the paint belonging to the Lead.


it isnt relevent whether or not you subscribe to this philosophy. the philosophy as stated is how these plays are expected to be officiated at that level.

Well, I occasionally work that rule set and I'm not the only who doesn't prescribe to it. I have not had any supervisor tell me that the entire paint belongs to the Lead if a secondary defender appears. What if the Lead has post players and the ball-handler dribbles away from the Trail towards the C and has a crash with a SD just below the free throw line right in front of the C? You're telling me that belongs to the Lead?

no, i am telling you that lead is the primary on secondary defenders in the lane, not that the c cannot have a call on these plays. both officials should have gone with fists before preliminary signal, but the center should know he is secondary on this type of play and should be aware of that before he goes right to block signal.

and you are forgetting the part of the philosophy that the lead has primary on contact with secondary defender when the play is going towards the basket. in the play you bring up, that is clearly not the case, therefore, the stated philosophy does not apply. now if you want to compare apples to apples we can, otherwise please feel free to bring up other exceptions.

Agree.

Didn't. They had just a block as others have stated. However, the video doesn't lie.

Of course you don't prescribe to it. Nobody prescribes to it.

Not my fault you said this "no, i am telling you that lead is the primary on secondary defenders in the lane" apparently leaving out the core of the apple.

Here's an apple, A1 beats B1 coming down the middle of the court, Lead has 2 large post players jostling with each other on the bottom block, B2 from C's primary slides into the paint a couple inches below the free throw line and on the C's side of the paint. A1 crashes into B2. This is the Lead's primary even though he is already offciating an engaged matchup in his primary?

At
 

A couple of thoughts here:
- BOTH C & L should have had a fist.
- This was a PC.
- Plays are ALWAYS easier to get right when they are coming towards you, rather than away from you.
- It's very difficult for an official to see thru/past a primary defender (who just got beat) AND the offensive player to see the secondary/"new" defender.
- The double whistle "areas" really require a "patient" whistle.

In this play the C never had to look through or past the primary defender. The primary defender took himself out the play and away from the C.

See the now bold section of my original post. Seems pretty clear to me.

[QUOTE=

Here's an apple, A1 beats B1 coming down the middle of the court, Lead has 2 large post players jostling with each other on the bottom block, B2 from C's primary slides into the paint a couple inches below the free throw line and on the C's side of the paint. A1 crashes into B2. This is the Lead's primary even though he is already offciating an engaged matchup in his primary?[/QUOTE]


Again, I never said that C or T cannot have whistles/calls on these plays, only that the L has the first crack at the play. Obviously, in the situation you describe, the L is probably going to be engaged in the matchup right in front of him and wont have a call, so it will be necessary for the C or T to cover this play.

What seems clear to me in the play being discussed is that B2 came from the C's primary and B2 had a foot outside the paint on the C's side when the crash occurred.

All day long that is the C's call in my games.

secondary defender = leads call

You can draw hard lines if you want to but in this case it is going to lead to less than optimal coverage....and the wrong call.

Normally, the C is covering rotating defenders because the C is not on ball. Not having the ball gives the best view of players rotating from thier primary towards the ball. But, once they have ball coverage their view of rotating defenders necessarily diminishes....they can't reliably watch two things at once....that is why an off-ball official is usually tasked with covering the rotating defenders.

If you want to claim the defender was in and coming from the C's primary, then the C had 6 players in his primary, 4 at the point of the ball with a soft on-ball screen, the spot up shooter and the defender who took the charge. The player that took the charge was the 3rd defender in the play.

There was another isolated defender under the basket and an isolated offensive player on the opposite perimeter...no need for anyone to watch them. The last pair was just outside the lane opposite and were not engaged. No need for both the T and the C to be watching those....4 eyes on one non-competitive matchup and 2 eyes on 3 competitive situations. That just doesn't make sense.

The C should have recoginzed that he was overloaded and, regardless of who was C, T, or L, acted as if he were the T and trusted his partners to be covering the 3rd defender coming into the play late...that is why there are 3 officials. The boundaries of coverage should not always be dictated by the lines on the court but by where the players are. Even the T had a better chance of getting that call right. In a 3-man game, no official should be trying to cover 6 players while on-ball.

Now, what really should have happened....the lead should have rotated, freeing up the C to slide up to T and only worry about the on-ball activity. However, if you believe the defender had come from the C's primary as it was called, then the defender would have been in the T's primary if they had rotated. If he had been T instead of C, he'd have still got it wrong for the same reasons. Untimately, the C needed to realized he had too many players to cover well and let his partners get it.

Once A1 put the ball on the floor all those other players belonged to the T and L. B1 immediately stepped away and B2 slid down from the top of the key. The Lead was looking across the paint to the 2 engaged players (meaning he should have rotated). His head did not turn until A1 and B2 crashed. The Lead guessed right. And B2 still had right foot entirely outside the paint on the C's side of the court and his left was partially outside the paint when the crash occurred. He simply got the play wrong.

I don't subscribe to it either. :D