Dayton-Gonzaga Block/Charge plays (video x3)
 

I thought there were some interesting plays while I was watching this one in the middle of the night at work. Here are three of them.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HU8aeBkk_-E?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In my opinion,

Block
Play on
PC

Travel, nothing, charge.

Agreed.

In 2, if you do call the block, count the basket.

In 3 the official seems to point at the arc as the reason, but the defender wasn't in it.

I don't think he was in the arc either. The official definitely points to the arc as the reason for the block. It is pretty close though. It looks as though the defenders left heel is off the ground and pretty close to being over the line. I would not be able to catch that, but if it is above the line for the arc, he is in the arc.

His initial guarding position is pretty clearly outside the arc (as I recall -- I didn't go back and look). You are allowed to backup into the arc and take a charge. I wonder why C or T didn't come in with information?

Travel on play #1? So you're saying the contact was incidental?

Just wondering...apart from the arc aspect on Play #3, are those of you lobbying for a PC doing so with the new NCAAM rule in mind?

Don't know it, don't do them, but I am sure that someone who does know the rule is going to point out that this is a block under that code. In any game I'm officiating this is a PC.

Looks like the foul caused the travel, if there is even a travel to be called.

NFHS:

Play 1: Charge
Play 2: No call
Play 3: Can't tell from this angle, not a block due to RA though.

Note on play 3: The defender established LGP outside the arc, but when the defenders foot came down it looks like it clipped the line. That's probably what the lead saw.

Question on play 1: if there is a travel, isn't this Trails call to make? I don't see how the Lead could have located the pivot foot while refereeing the defense.

Both players were in the wrong. B could be called for a block but A dipped his shoulder and could have gotten the PC too. It is as 50/50 as it gets. Since the shoulder dip was the most obvious part of the play I'd lean toward a PC but the contact was not worthy of a foul when a travel was there.

As was mentioned earlier, the rule is a player can't establish LGP in the RA. If B1 establishes outside then backs up and maintains LGP, B1 can still draw a charge.


Um...okay. But what happened first?

All 3 incorrectly called.

#1. Defender never had two feet on the floor in the path and facing the opponent, therefore he never had LGP. Not having LGP, he would not be permitted to be moving at the time of contact. Therefore, it is a block.

#2. Weak call. If there was a call, the defender was in the path with 2 feet on the floor and facing the opponent. The shooter was not in the upward motion (the official would have awarded two shots if so) so the defender had LGP. The defender was legally moving directly away from the dribbler. A block would not be possible. Furthermore, the only contact was with the dribbler's forearm. Not sure you can even commit a block against the opponent's arm. All that said, I don't think it was a charge or PC either. Should have been a no call.

#3. Defender had LGP as the dribbler was coming around the 1st defender....so he had it in plenty of time even under the new upward movement. That was a charge. And even if he ended up in the RA, he had LGP outside of it and only moved to maintain it.

If the defender doesn't have LGP, why would this matter?

To me, if the defender isn't legal, it doesn't really matter how A runs into him unless he extends a limb or something to push off and I don't consider an immovable part of the torso to be a limb. Plus, most people running lean forward a bit.