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.

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.

There are going to be very few instances where the T is going to have a good look at where and when the secondary defender establishes his position. I don't think it is a matter of being ready or not, I think it is more a case that consistently having this info from the T means you are ignoring stuff you should be more concerned about.

In the C you can be in a better position to help on this play, but I would be willing to wager that most of the time the C does not pick up the secondary defender until the point of contact. It is more likely he is following the offensive player into the paint. Just as with the T, this isn't going to be much help since we have to know where LGP was established.

Realistically the only person who has a shot at having this info for the secondary defender is the L and that is why you don't see many of these calls changed.

That's nice, but why do the qualifications for establishing initial Legal Guarding Position not include this line about being in the path of an opponent?

The rule book does this sort of thing all the time and I forgot that fact when I responded early this morning. Guarding was defined within a prior rule so the term itself doesn’t have to be explained again when the phrase legal guarding position comes up

I'm guessing because the act of guarding is already defined, and it would just be redundant.

This makes me angry. It's a definition-within-a-definition. (insert Inception joke here)

I suppose, but it's not as if the definition of guarding is off in some different section of the book. It's defined in the article directly before how to get LGP is talked about. And as JetMetFan alluded to, rule books do this sort of thing all the time. Once a term has been defined, no need to go back and define or bring up the explicit meaning of a term later again in the book.

A perfect example of this is the airborne shooter...it's defined early in rule 4...but you won't see a later rule alluding to an airborne shooter and defining explicitly what it is to be an airborne shooter.

Been away with family so I'm just now chiming in on the question to me...

See what APG said.


If it were not true, a defender could get LGP without even being near an opponent.

Imagine a fast break. B1 trailing A1 is facing A1 and probably has two feet down at some point in the play. Do you think B1 has LGP from such a position? Why or why not? Can you have LGP following someone from behind?

Would you think that it is sufficient for B1 to then be able to pass A1 and jump into their path with their back to A1, perhaps not even having their feet down? Would you say this is a charge? The did previous to being in the path did have two feet town and facing A1?

That is what anyone who argues that two feet down IN the path is not required is really saying.

I see calls like that too often from all positions for it to be a matter of the lead being too close or at a bad angle. There are just officials that regularly penalize legal defenders on such plays. I've seen defenders moving directly away from shooters get called for a block where the officials have a perfect view. Some officials incorrectly require defenders to be "set"....and I've heard them use that term in explaining their call to the players, coaches, and partners.

Right, but a player so far away would not be a foul threat.

I understand about being in the path. I just wish it were included in the LGP language for better clarity.

Anyway, once initial LGP is established a player can turn around and take a charge in the back.

Cam, your last quote credited me when it was JetMet's post you quoted.

Not necessarily. It could be a player defending someone near the corner seeing a teammate getting beat at the top of the key who races towards the key trying to rotate into a position to cover the drive. He could have easily been facing the dribbler from that position and still be able to get in front of him on the way to the basket but not get 2 feet down, facing, while in the path.

Agree 100%.
Fixed the quote attribution.

Ok that makes sense. I agree.

Regarding play 1, how do we define "in the path"? Is it generally in the path (example in this case being between the dribbler and his path to the basket) or specifically in the path (must be directly in front of the dribbler to establish LGP)?

I don't believe the book actually defines "path". However, I think either one could be appropriate. Being between the opponent and the basket is always going to be sufficient to get LGP but being in front of the opponent (relative to the direction of the opponent) is also sufficient. Most of the time, both are the same.

Also, before it can even matter, the defender will have been "in front" of the dribbler relative to the dribbler's path. Otherwise, there would be no contact since the dribbler would be going a different direction.