Block Charge Videos
 

Here are some block/charge plays to look at...

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

1) Charge

2) Can't tell from the camera angle whether it's a charge or a no-call. L sould be squared up to the play though, and not parallel to the end-line with just his head turned.

3) Charge.

#1. Block...defender still moving forward at the time of contact.

#2. Hard to tell but not a charge. The defender may have shifted sideways into the shooter's path but can't say for sure.

#3. Charge.

My Three Cents ...
 

1) Charge (Team control foul).
2) Hard to tell from our angle, but if I were to venture a guess, I would guess no call.
3) Charge (Player control foul).

Block, nocall, charge

Play 1 defender doesn't have LGP before player with the ball is airborne.

Play 2 the offensive player jumps sideways, total flop.

Play 3, good PC call.

We have seen this video before.
1. Charge, the defender obtains LGP prior to the opponent's second foot leaving the floor. However, he is not in LGP prior to the start of the offensive player's upward movement, so this is a call which will change under the new NCAA rule. Will be intriguing to see how this philosophy/rule change filters down into the HS game.

2. Slight contact as the offensive player moves sideways past the defender. From this angle there seems to be lots of acting by the defender. So either a no call or a block is appropriate, depending upon how people in your area want such called.

3. Clearly a charge, so obvious that it's not even worthy of discussion.

Sorry if there are repeats as I am new to this forum and am not familiar with the videos you've see or have not seen.

Apologies for future posts that apply.

No worries

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.

Agreed, not that big a deal. There are inevitably going to be some who weren't around for the first round.

1. Charge

2. Play on

3. Charge

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

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

Not a problem. Welcome to the forum. Just know that we will continue to make fun of officials from SoCal.

Charge

Block

Charge

Oh I'm sure you will. Living in such a nice place almost demands it from those in other parts of the country. : D

1. Charge
2. Play on, and don't pull that crap on me again.
3. Charge

PC (would've been nice if the C watched both players hit the floor as opposed to following the ball to the other side of the court)

nothing

PC

By my count we are almost 50/50 on the 1st play.

Would be nice if the crew had a C to watch any plays, but that's not how it is done where this game was played.

I'm Kidding, Just Kidding ...
 

Time for a poll?

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?

Understand that, but as I mention above, in my opinion (its close), the defender never got legal guarding position. I didn't want to say "before the defender got legal guarding position" because the defender never did. I guess "defender getting set" was short for "defender getting two feet down and torso facing the opponent"

I'm a little confused - though it's not the first time and won't be the last. Are you saying this was a two-person crew? The officials' movements in Play #3 indicate otherwise.

People where I am use the term "established" to convey this while avoiding sending an incorrect message.

Yep, it's the same two guys in all three plays. Plus I know that CA is almost entirely 2-man.

Check the crew's movement on play #3. That's a 3-person rotation if I ever saw one. Given the camera angle the T may be deep but I'd be surprised if it wasn't a 3-person crew.

Additionally, if this is a playoff game all those I've seen on the DVBOA YouTube feed have been 3-person.

I don't know for sure, so I'll wait for the poster of the video to answer and clarify for us.
The final play looked like a C moving down to me as well, but it could just be the T working low. Also early round playoff games are still 2-man.

I hope not because that's way too low, especially for a play that wasn't in his PCA where he needed to be watching off the ball.

Hello all,
In the Great State of California all 1'st and 2'nd round sectional playoff games are handled with two person crews.Sectional quarterfinals and all subsequent rounds of the state tournament are handled in three person.Regular season assignments are also in two person except for select tournament finals.

oh and on the plays:
1.Charge
2.Play on
3.Charge

Ok boys and girls, this is was a preseason tournament championship game and we were working 3 person. During the regular season here in California we work 2 person. It isn't until the quarterfinals of the section playoffs that we go to 3 person. Hope that clears things up.

Please understand that what you have written is only accurate for Southern California. In the Northern half of the state section quarterfinals are done with two-person crews. 3-man is only used for semis and finals.

Thanks for providing confirmation of the system being used in this particular contest. Consider yourselves fortunate to have one more round of 3-person crews than in the north.

Now knowing this, I'll make one further comment on the first play in the video. There simply must be a whistle on this play from the C. (Doesn't matter if he calls a block or a charge, but make a call!). To not have one at all hurts our cause in officiating as it makes the coaches and administrators ask why they should bother to have 3-person crews. A 2-person crew could have no-called this just as well in the minds of those counting the beans.

For crews who work two or three 3-man games per year, I'll cut them some slack.

Nevadaref,
Thanks for correcting me.I didn't realize that the northern part of the state followed a different procedure for playoff games then those of us down south.

It's not that much different, but the sections are generally smaller up North, thus 16 teams brackets are seen in each division during sectional playoffs whereas you will start with 32, especially in the SS. Smaller sections obviously have even fewer postseason qualifiers.
My experience has been that for 16 team brackets, the first two rounds use two-person crews and the last two rounds use three. Yep, those quarterfinal D1 boys games can be tough with only two officials.

Actually, that is one of the biggest complaints from both sides. The coaches and admin folks say that too much isn't done properly because of the officials lack of experience with the 3-person system and the officials also say that they don't get enough reps in the system because it isn't used during the regular season.

The bottom line is that using that excuse will only cause the decision makers to drop 3-person entirely. So no one can ask for slack, if we desire to demonstrate that 3-person is the way to go.

Here's where I can't give the "they don't do 3-person that often" slack with the no-call on play #1: regardless of whether it was 2-person or 3-person, that contact was in the PCA of the official closest to the camera. It was on the border for 2-person but most definitely for 3-person.

If there was "2-person on the brain" in this play then I would've expected the Center AND the Lead to make a call instead of no one.

http://i43.tinypic.com/n2lpi9.gif

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.

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"

"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... :cool:

Charge - It's close and I am not going to lose sleep either way, but something needs to be called.
No call - but difficult to see contact from camera angle. I could even argue for a block as it looks to me like defender may be moving into offensive player.
Charge - I know this is in L's PCA, but anyone else wish C had a double whistle here? What other competitive matchups does C have?

In regards to the quoted, since this was a pass, does the upward movement of the new NCAAW rule still apply?

*As to the C having a double whistle, no I don't think he should. If there's a double it should be with the T since that's where the play started.

*Remember, the PC change being considered would only apply to NCAAM

Upward motion to shoot or pass

Pass And Crash ...
 

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...

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.

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.

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.

+1

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.