1. Block
2. PC or nothing, but probably nothing
3. Block - I don't think defender had legal guarding position on the gather of the ball.

Right, I am not disagreeing. He was outside the RA when he established position, which leads me to question why the Lead pointed at the RA. You can see the defender on his tiptoes at one point (1:17), and when his feet came back down his heel was on the line (barely seen right before the time changes to 1:18)....the lead probably saw that and assumed LGP was not established outside the RA.

Does this matter?? I think not. In the slo-mo replay I have LGP established at 0:16 into the video. Unless you are not referencing NFHS rules here, I don't see how anything he did lost LGP. He moved obliquely to his left, did not slide under once the offensive player was airbourne, etc.

The man has a point...LGP requires two feet on the floor with the torso of the defender facing his/her opponent. Nothing about in the path.

The very act of guarding requires the opponent to legally place himself in the path of the offensive player.

4-23-1

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

One of these mornings when I'm awake I'll remember to go back far enough into Rule 4 :o

Possibly but the T wouldn't be able to see when A1's dribble ended since A1's back was to him.


What are your thoughts on this one being left to the C to handle? I know both C and new L are racing to get into position but it seems as though C has the less stressful - for lack of a better word - situation to make a call if one needed to be made. I also felt watching it live (yes, I was able to) that new L was too close to be able to see the entire play.

I can see how #3 can be called a block, not because of being in the RA, but because the defender slid to the right after the shooter began his upward motion. If the lead saw that motion coming into the path after the shot began, given the emphasis this year, I can understand the block call.

#1: should have been a block; never had LGP

#2: incidental contact followed by a travel

#3: Without benefit of replay, Lead judges defenders foot is over RA, so I can live with that call

Maybe the reason for the wave off was he saw a travel? Or he could've realized he kicked it and didn't want to compound the problem by scoring the goal.


I don't think so, mainly because he emphatically pointed at the RA as the reason for the block call.

Taught never to come with this information unless we are 100% certain and we have all the information. No way T had any look as to whether or not secondary defender established in arc or not. C might have had a look, but might not of as well. As far as coming with all the information, they could go to the monitor if none of them remember who the offensive player was. Although this might look as though they were checking to see if defender was in RA and a review for that isn't allowed.

You still have to tell the coaches why you're going to the monitor so it's not as though you can go for one thing then come up with another.

I agree with this.

My take: his initial position was stationary. Just after the contact and as he falls he moves his foot back onto the line. At that point the L appears to glance down to see where he was stationary and convinces himself that's where the foot was the whole time.

"starting his/her upward motion"
 

Regarding the 3rd play:
In determining when the ballhandler/shooter starts the upward motion, is the emphasis more on when the ballhandler ends the dribble, or gathers the ball, or when the feet begin to elevate from a horizontal path to a vertical leap?
In previous seasons, with the block/charge moment of delineation between a call being a block or a PC charge, being when the shooter became airborne, and now being when the upward motion begins, how are you defiining that moment?

I know the rule and the mechanic, so let me re-phrase: I wonder why (without going back and watching the play again), C or T didn't have the information. Lesson (for me): Be ready to help.