Block Charge Videos

[HokiePaul]

1) Block. In real time, looks like a charge, but in slow motion, I think the offensive player was airborn when the defender got set and so the defender never obtained legal guarding position. It's also not the worst no-call I've seen.

2) no-call.

3) Charge.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

when the defender got set

You may wish to take this phrase and never use it again.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Rich

You may wish to take this phrase and never use it again.

hmm ... I wasn't sure how to phrase this. I didn't want to say "when the defender obtained legal guarding position" because in my opinion, they never did. So the defender was never set/established in a legal position.

any suggestions for better terminology?

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

hmm ... I wasn't sure how to phrase this. I didn't want to say "when the defender obtained legal guarding position" because in my opinion, they never did. So the defender was never set/established in a legal position.

any suggestions for better terminology?

Many years ago, (I can't remember the specific year), the word "establish", in 4-23-2,3,4,5 was changed to "obtain" because the NF Committee thought that "establish" denoted a process that took some amount of time. They wanted the mind-set of officials and others concerned, to be more focused on the moment of any contact rather than some process that was developing.

In block/charge situations, many officials, players and coaches still struggle with the concept. I once won a bet with two mouthy opponents who kept using the "set/he wasn't set" phrase, by telling them that the word "set" couldn't be found in the Rule Book.

[dvboa]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

hmm ... I wasn't sure how to phrase this. I didn't want to say "when the defender obtained legal guarding position" because in my opinion, they never did. So the defender was never set/established in a legal position.

any suggestions for better terminology?

We always ask our officials "Did the player go TO the defense or THROUGH the defense?"

I think if you apply this thinking then the sequence becomes easy.

1. pc - through
2. nc - to
3. pc - through

Hope this helps...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dvboa

We always ask our officials "Did the player go TO the defense or THROUGH the defense?"

I think if you apply this thinking then the sequence becomes easy.

1. pc - through
2. nc - to
3. pc - through

Hope this helps...

FWIW, NCAAW has specifically said that "to or through" is NOT the way to judge PC or no call -- you can have a PC even if it's just "TO"

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by dvboa

We always ask our officials "Did the player go TO the defense or THROUGH the defense?"

I think if you apply this thinking then the sequence becomes easy.

1. pc - through
2. nc - to
3. pc - through

Hope this helps...

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FWIW, NCAAW has specifically said that "to or through" is NOT the way to judge PC or no call -- you can have a PC even if it's just "TO"

I'll add that an evaluator from the men's side of the PAC12 and WCC gave a presentation last season stating the same thing that Bob wrote--only TO is necessary, the "through" part is not being taught as a judgment factor at the NCAA level anymore.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

1) Block. In real time, looks like a charge, but in slow motion, I think the offensive player was airborn when the defender got set and so the defender never obtained legal guarding position. It's also not the worst no-call I've seen.

2) no-call.

3) Charge.

Originally Posted by Adam

Rich alludes to it above, but there is no requirement for a defender to ever be set. Ever. LGP does not require "getting set."

Originally Posted by dvboa

We always ask our officials "Did the player go TO the defense or THROUGH the defense?"

I think if you apply this thinking then the sequence becomes easy.

1. pc - through


Hope this helps...

"Through" is not illegal if the defender is moving forward as the defender in #1 was still doing even at the time of contact, much less the time the shooter left the floor.

If you referee the defense, that becomes easy to see.

[dvboa]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"Through" is not illegal if the defender is moving forward as the defender in #1 was still doing even at the time of contact, much less the time the shooter left the floor.

If you referee the defense, that becomes easy to see.

I guess there is no easy way of putting a term to describe a block/charge. To many variables. Just call it and hope you're not wrong...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by dvboa

1. pc.

No. Team control. The player had already passed the ball and then the contact (charge) occurred.

[dvboa]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No. Team control. The player had already passed the ball and then the contact (charge) occurred.

Boy, you guys don't miss anything. I'm definitely running everything through here before anything gets published...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by dvboa

Boy, you guys don't miss anything. I'm definitely running everything through here before anything gets published...

There are several very experienced and really knowledgable people on this forum. We don't always agree, but considering the thoughts of the forum members will certainly make one a better official and in your case could benefit your entire association.

Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the work that you put into making these training videos as the ones which have been posted here have generated good discussion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No. Team control. The player had already passed the ball and then the contact (charge) occurred.

Maybe so, technically. But 100% irrelevant. Once they changed the penalty for the team control foul to be the same as the PC foul, they should have also eliminated the PC foul. It serves no purpose. The same exceptions (extensions) that are added to the PC foul to cover for a shooter who has released a try could just be moved to the TC foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Maybe so, technically. But 100% irrelevant. Once they changed the penalty for the team control foul to be the same as the PC foul, they should have also eliminated the PC foul. It serves no purpose. The same exceptions (extensions) that are added to the PC foul to cover for a shooter who has released a try could just be moved to the TC foul.

Careful, they will probably try making that change and end up changing the rules covering bench decorum by accident.

[dvboa]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Maybe so, technically. But 100% irrelevant. Once they changed the penalty for the team control foul to be the same as the PC foul, they should have also eliminated the PC foul. It serves no purpose. The same exceptions (extensions) that are added to the PC foul to cover for a shooter who has released a try could just be moved to the TC foul.

True but the high school mechanic is different for both calls. A player control foul we still go to the back of the head as in the old player control mechanic and a team control foul we just use the punch without going to the back of the head.