More Block/PC plays from CA...3 of them
 

I'm beginning to like these Desert Valley folks. Thoughts on the plays?

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IKFSZrzALqE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #1 is a charge that should have been called.

Play #2 correctly no-called.

Play #3 correctly called a PC.

I've got a charge, no call, and a PC.

+1

I give them credit for trying to get better by watching plays & putting their mistakes up for scrutiny (including by this peanut gallery).

Second, I think we need to look at more symptomatic issues versus simple call validation. If you look at the lead positioning and what the officials are refereeing (based on their head position), and what they should have been refereeing with what is happening in the game, you can see why they struggled covering the plays.

Agreed. I'm glad videos of my games aren't here. ;)

In the first one, it looks like C is late getting down, and he turns his head with the pass. L is looking across, and also turns. IT's the C's call, though.

Given the other vids from this association, I thought this might be 2-man. But I also saw both turn to watch the ball.

The L seems to process the crash for a second: perhaps he passed on it because his partner did. I'm not sure his partner saw it.

Pre-gaming the pass-and-crash is key.

I noticed that. While the offensive player is still airborne, it doesn't appear there are any eyes on him and the defender.

Not having three man experience, I understand that the lead in this case is officiating off ball in his PCA but should he have some awareness of the offensive player and potentially reach across and have a whistle there if the C doesn't?

Thanks for posting these JetMetFan, I always need more basketball video to break down.

Yes, there's not much else happening in L's primary (we don't see enough prior to the play to know what else happened -- late rotation, secondary break, etc.). L could have at least "pinched the paint".

Pregame contract should include that we commit as a crew to have a foul on all block charge plays with 2-players on the floor.

Frankly, in play #1, I am not sure what the lead is refereeing. THE play on the court is the drive to the rim. Now, I am not an expert in 2-man mechanics, but I would think he has responsibility on the secondary defender, then on rebounding action. Either way, he shouldn't be blind to the drive refereeing action on the 3-point arc.

Good guideline, but not a committment.

Thanks. What do you mean by pinching the paint? I understood that to be closing down closer to the nearest lane line, which it seems he's already there.

I watched again and noticed the L was watching the play. Not sure why he held his whistle there.

I really dislike this statement and disagree when it is brought up in pre-games.

There are times when 2 players end up on the floor and neither has done anything illegal. We should not be calling a foul just because of this.

If we referee the defense and see the entire play then we should be able to have high accuracy on block/charges and not just have a whistle because it "has to be something."

A better phrase IMO is, "if we have bodies on the floor we should either have a whistle or be able to explain how they got there."

Point taken... I am not one for dealing in absolutes normally (unless mandated by the rules: see the NCAA absolutes from 2-3 years ago).

On a block/charge play if you have 2 guys on the floor, it is HIGHLY likely that there is a foul. Not to mention the safety hazard that is created with bodies on the floor in the paint.

I agree.

I just dont like the absolute because I have seen officials use it to put whistles in the game that shouldnt be there or use it as an excuse to basically guess on a block/charge instead of actually refereeing the play.

Maybe its a good guideline for some younger officials who may pass too much on these plays b/c they don't know what to call. But I still think teaching them to referee the defense will work better for them.

I also agree that in play #1 here, the L is basically following the ball and not refereeing his PCA.

1) Charge
2) Charge
3) Charge

IMHO, it's no wonder that the only play that had a whistle is when the drive occurred on Leads' side. It's not only easier to officiate when the Play is coming towards you...but it takes the guess-work out of who should have a whistle.

Lesson: Lead...GET OVER TO BALL-SIDE TO OFFICIATE!

I will start this by saying that I know eash association does things a little different.

In our association we try to call very little from the lead position and try to let C and T have strong games and first crack. That being said, L should (in my assoc.) have secondary defender. My wonder is if he was holding his whistle to let C get the call and then just "froze" when C didn't call anything. Either way, something should have been called there and IMPO it should have been the C that made sure. Personally I have been taught that a strong C makes or breaks a crew and in this instance they might have broke it. As C you need to be agressive and "go after" calls as opposed to L where you "wait" for calls. Again, just how I was "raised" to do it.

Had one last night. 7th Grade boys. One player clearly more athletic than everyone else on floor. Had 2 charges called against him, one from my partner, one from me, both times from L during a fast break.

Q3, same player goes to hole, very minor contact, both players go down trying to draw a foul on each other. Explained to both coaches that they were trying to draw the foul with minimal contact. Both were ok with explanation.

I would encourage you to think about the safety hazard that is created with 2 players on the ground in the paint. Players jumping on or over them trying to score the ball. This is a huge safety issue both for players on the ground (getting jumped on) and the players who are jumping (landing on a player and rolling an ankle).

With 2 players on the floor, rarely is a no-call the correct call unless they go to the floor voluntarily to get a loose ball for example.

On the play #2 there is definitely no offensive foul.

Agreed...the defender almost flops in a way because the offensive player skirts around him. Not that I would call a flop...just saying

I agree. Defender crumpled too easily from essentially a brush by.

1) Block
2) Tough angle here. I'm going to say no call--looks to me like the contact was just glancing based on the angle of the offensive player.
3) Easy PC.

Agree that #2 is a no-call.

Further evidence: watch the offensive player who is jumping to his right (rather that to and through the defender).

I posted before reading the responses. I see I'm alone on #1. My first thought live was a charge. After a couple replays, I think the defender moves both toward the offensive player and to the side after the shooter leaves the ground. It is very close and I could be convinced that I'm wrong.

Either way the play needed a whistle.

You aren't alone...On slow-mo I see a block but in real time I believe I too would have called a PC

Slo mo shows #1 is a block since the offensive player leaves the ground before defense has LGP. BUT, it happened so fast in real time that I'd have gone PC too.

Agree with no call on #2 and PC on #3

No he doesn't. His back foot is still on the floor by the time the defender has both feet down.

#1. Block....defender was not in time. He was still moving into the path after the shooter was airborne. He may have gotten his feet down, but that isn't all that is required. Additionally, his torso was still moving towards the shooter all the way to contact.

#2. Nothing

#3. PC

#1 - Block
#2 - No Call
#3 - Charge

1. PC
2. Defenders feet are so wide I may have had a block
3. PC

Charge It ...
 

Are you sure that the contact wasn't after the pass, and thus, a team control foul? I will admit that it was close, but take a closer look.

1. PC. Although I could live with a no call

2. Nothing. Not a lot of contact and defender flops a bit.

3. PC.

Politically Correct ???
 

Are you sure that the contact wasn't after the pass, and thus, a team control foul? I will admit that it was close, but take a closer look.

Oops. Correct. Like I said might even have nothing.

No need to repeat yourself. You made your point the first time.

I think block, nothing, PC

IMO those of you saying block on play #1 are asking way too much of the defender.

I have no clue how you see (2) as a charge. The guy is already flopping when the driving player reaches him -- the contact, if any, is incidental.

And there's no way to know if the L in (1) had time to get ballside as the video started too late. I did go back and look at this a few times myself as I'd want to be over there if I had a chance -- I don't want a C taking this drive if I can get it as the L.

I agree with those who think we're asking too much of the defender if we're calling this a block.

Same here. He gets two feet on the floor before A1 leaves the floor and his torso is facing the shooter. It's tough to expect a defender to immediately become a statue.

I think it is too much to ask of the offensive player to change direction when a defender comes into their path after they're in the air. The defender doesn't have to immediately become a statue if he gets there in time. He just didn't get there quick enough to meet the requirements.

In addition to having two feet down and having his torso facing the shooter, the defender must also have his torso in the path of the opponent before the opponent jumps...and that is the element on which he failed. It is the position of the torso that dictates when the defender makes it into the path or not. The feet only matter as far as being on the floor, not their position relative to the path.

If you want to allow him to bring his torso into the path after the shooter jumps, then you must also allow a defender to lean their torso out into the path if they had their feet down and facing...it is essentially the same thing.

1 - Block
2 - No Call
3 - Charge

The defender has to obtain LGP before his opponent leaves the floor. I'd post a freeze if I could - I'm at work - but B1 does meet the requirement in this case. A1 was almost airborne but according to the rule almost isn't good enough.

Don't Beat Yourself Up Either ...
 

Don't lose sleep over this. It was real, real, close.

A freeze frame will not help you...it will not show what you need to see.

There are a two reasons he doesn't have LGP but the only one you really need to consider is that B1 was moving towards the shooter all the way until the time of contact....well after A1 left the floor. That alone makes it a block.

You could see that if you get two freeze shots. If you freeze it at the time the shooter leaves the floor and then another freeze at the time of contact, you'll see that the defender has moved toward A1 in that interval (as was still moving). Just because the feet are still doesn't mean the defender isn't moving.

That's where we're going to differ and that's why I referred to the defender being a statue. His upper body is going to be moving towards the shooter just as a matter of physics because his body is slowing down. If he doesn't break what would be his normal vertical plane then he hasn't done anything wrong.

That is precisely why it is illegal.

4-23-3:
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs

The rules of guarding require that he get there in time to NOT be moving towards the shooter.

He doesn't get verticality until he is vertical. Moving into a vertical position after the shooter is airborne is NOT verticality..

I agree with you who agree with those.

I don't think it's asking too much of the defender to not move into the offensive player, airborne or not. He was *almost* there....but just not quite. I say block.

Do you agree with those, or just Rich?

Can't we apply some transitive property here? :D

I feel a logic lesson coming on. :eek:

A really tedious one, at that.

Hey, who tossed the word 'transitive' in like a grenade? :p

Players (and usually coaches) NEVER seem to understand this when the explanation is given.

At least they didn't go commutative.

My thoughts exactly. I have no problem with a no call in play 1, although clearly both officials follow the ball. It appears that defender is still moving after shooter goes airborne.

2. I think an easy, and thus correct, no call.

3. Easy Offensive call.

Camron nails it for #1, I agree with block, no call, PC.