The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   More Block/PC plays from CA...3 of them (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/93995-more-block-pc-plays-ca-3-them.html)

JetMetFan Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:26am

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>

Raymond Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:43am

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

Play #2 correctly no-called.

Play #3 correctly called a PC.

JugglingReferee Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:54am

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

VaTerp Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by badnewsref (Post 878708)
play #1 is a charge that should have been called.

Play #2 correctly no-called.

Play #3 correctly called a pc.

+1

Tio Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:13am

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.

bob jenkins Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tio (Post 878720)
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.

maven Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 878730)
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.

Welpe Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 878730)
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.

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.

bob jenkins Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 878738)
I noticed that. While the shooter 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 shooter 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".

Tio Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:34am

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.

bob jenkins Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tio (Post 878742)
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.

Good guideline, but not a committment.

Welpe Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 878741)
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".

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.

VaTerp Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tio (Post 878742)
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.

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."

Tio Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:42am

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.

VaTerp Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tio (Post 878749)
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.

twocentsworth Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:42pm

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!

egj13 Tue Feb 12, 2013 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 878745)
I watched again and noticed the L was watching the play. Not sure why he held his whistle there.

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.

dsqrddgd909 Tue Feb 12, 2013 01:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 878747)
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.
.....
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."

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.

Tio Tue Feb 12, 2013 01:22pm

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.

Raymond Tue Feb 12, 2013 01:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocentsworth (Post 878766)
1) Charge
2) Charge
3) Charge

...!

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

egj13 Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 878786)
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

Welpe Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 878786)
On the play #2 there is definitely no offensive foul.

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

A Pennsylvania Coach Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:09pm

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.

Tio Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:09pm

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).

A Pennsylvania Coach Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach (Post 878799)
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.

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.

Raymond Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach (Post 878802)
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.

egj13 Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach (Post 878802)
I posted before reading the responses. I see I'm alone on #1.

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

#olderthanilook Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:23pm

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

Welpe Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook (Post 878808)
Slo mo shows #1 is a block since the offensive player leaves the ground before defense has LGP.

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

Camron Rust Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:32pm

#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

icallfouls Tue Feb 12, 2013 02:44pm

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

tjchamp Tue Feb 12, 2013 05:14pm

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

BillyMac Tue Feb 12, 2013 06:40pm

Charge It ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tjchamp (Post 878865)
1. PC.

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.

OKREF Tue Feb 12, 2013 07:09pm

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

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

3. PC.

BillyMac Tue Feb 12, 2013 07:14pm

Politically Correct ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 878887)
1. PC.

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.

OKREF Tue Feb 12, 2013 07:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 878889)
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.

Welpe Tue Feb 12, 2013 09:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 878889)
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.

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

scrounge Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:08pm

I think block, nothing, PC

VaTerp Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:30pm

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

Rich Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocentsworth (Post 878766)
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 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.

Rich Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach (Post 878802)
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.

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

JetMetFan Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 878918)
IMO those of you saying block on play #1 are asking way too much of the defender.

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.

Camron Rust Wed Feb 13, 2013 01:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 878929)
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.

JeffM Wed Feb 13, 2013 02:40am

1 - Block
2 - No Call
3 - Charge

JetMetFan Wed Feb 13, 2013 04:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 878934)
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.

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.

BillyMac Wed Feb 13, 2013 06:27am

Don't Beat Yourself Up Either ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 878893)
Oops. Correct.

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

Camron Rust Wed Feb 13, 2013 06:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 878936)
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.

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.

JetMetFan Wed Feb 13, 2013 06:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 878942)
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.

Camron Rust Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 878944)
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..

Welpe Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 878922)
I agree with those who think we're asking too much of the defender if we're calling this a block.

I agree with you who agree with those.

scrounge Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 878918)
IMO those of you saying block on play #1 are asking way too much of the defender.

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.

maven Wed Feb 13, 2013 01:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 879088)
I agree with you who agree with those.

Do you agree with those, or just Rich?

Rich Wed Feb 13, 2013 01:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 879110)
Do you agree with those, or just Rich?

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

Welpe Wed Feb 13, 2013 01:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 879110)
Do you agree with those, or just Rich?

I feel a logic lesson coming on. :eek:

Rich Wed Feb 13, 2013 01:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 879117)
I feel a logic lesson coming on. :eek:

A really tedious one, at that.

maven Wed Feb 13, 2013 02:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 879124)
A really tedious one, at that.

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

#olderthanilook Wed Feb 13, 2013 02:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 879076)
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..

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

Camron Rust Wed Feb 13, 2013 02:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 879131)
Hey, who tossed the word 'transitive' in like a grenade? :p

At least they didn't go commutative.

Texref Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach (Post 878799)
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.

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.

Red_Killian Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 879076)
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..

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1