Dayton-Gonzaga Block/Charge plays (video x3)

[JetMetFan]

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.

[OKREF]

In my opinion,

Block
Play on
PC

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

In my opinion,

Block
Play on
PC

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.

[johnny d]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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?

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I wonder why C or T didn't come in with information?

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?

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.

[blindzebra]

Travel, nothing, charge.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Travel, nothing, charge.

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

[JetMetFan]

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?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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.

Um...okay. But what happened first?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#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.

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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

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.