Missouri State/Wichita State video requests
 

I think it was on ESPN3 but I believe you can pull clips from there.

All second half:

13:30 - block called

9:07 - block called

:47.7 - block called - Really want to see this one again.

Also if anyone wants to see an OOB call reviewed and reversed, there was one at 24.6.

The block/charge play with 47.7 seconds remaining in regulation can been viewed on ESPN.com in the game highlights.
I have it as a blatant charging foul.

Imo
 

After viewing all 3 plays on ESPN360, I have one observation. It was the same official that was involved in all 3 plays.

Play #3, IMO, is a straight out charge.

Concerning the play @ 24.6 - if that is the by rule, then good job. I'll admit that I'm not that familiar with that rule.

I'm working on it. Just want to make sure - the last two plays are in regulation, correct?

Yes all in regulation.

video added...4 plays, 1 clip
 

Here are the plays...

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/N0ciVD8B0ZM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not only was play 3 a PC foul, but the dribbler traveled as well.

I still don't think plays 1 and 2 were defensive fouls, especially #2.

The OOB review was correct, although I hate the rule.

#1 - The offensive player has as much right to that spot as the defender. Unless the defender got their first, and the fact he's still moving laterally tells me he didn't, I have a block.

#2 - The defender got to the spot before the shooter started "going up"... charge.

#3 - Same as #2.

As for the OOB, I can't tell for sure one way or the other. I can't blame the ref for his call, as it looks like it was knocked out. On the other hand, the offensive player looks like he may have just lost control.

Note also in Play 1 that he didn't call a block, he called a hand heck and used the "arm bar" signal. I really don't think the defender arm barred him, but you could argue for a block.

I see three missed block calls. All of those plays were PC fouls IMO. And they were not that hard IMO either.

And the OOB play was missed too, but that was understandable IMO. He probably saw it late and assumed and gave it to the wrong team. That happens, but probably shouldn't.

Peace

What? There is no such requirement???? In fact, the rules explicitly allow it.

I did see the arm bar signal, but didn't give it any thought. I didn't see anything like that, either.

Agree....on all counts.

Take what I'm saying in context. I'm looking for LGP here, and the movement by the defender tells me he didn't have it. My understanding is that the defender has to at least get to that spot on the floor first, and in this case I don't see it. Both he and the offensive player get to that spot at the same time.

Not saying you're wrong.. not at all. But I'm curious as to your explanation as to why it's a charging call in play #1.

For full disclosure, I was at the game and was cheering for Missouri State. I wanted to see video of these because I thought one official really struggled in the second half of the game.

Someone posted on Facebook that the last 7 minutes of clock time took almost 40 minutes in real time. Another reason I don't like all of the monitor reviews.

The defender has LGP, back away and the dribble goes into him and seems to push off. All the defender did was prepare for the contact. His arm was there to if anything protect his midsection. I do not see how the official put this on the defender? That was the easiest call IMO. There was not issue with "upward motion" or airborne shooter at play. That was a PC foul last year too.

Then again, we had the benefit of tape.

Peace

LGP is obtained when the defender gets both feet down at the spot first. Personally, I don't see that here, as the defender is still moving towards the spot where contact is made when hit. It's close, though, so I wouldn't get on another official for calling a charge, but I don't see where this is so easy.

Umm, close. Here are the first three requirements for establishing LGP on someone with the ball:

a. The guard shall have both feet touching the playing court. When the guard jumps into position initially, both feet must return to the playing court after the jump, for the guard to attain a legal guarding position.
b. The guard’s torso shall face the opponent.
c. No time and distance shall be required.

And here is one of the criteria for maintaining LGP...

(the guard) may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position provided such a move is not toward the opponent when contact occurs;

Incorrect. You may want to review the definitions of LGP. Both feet down and being at the spot don't have to be at the same time. The defender had LGP with both feet down, in the path, and facing the dribbler when they were 10 feet apart. Maintaining LGP does not have any requirement on the feet...only that the defender not be moving toward the opponent at the time of contact....he was moving away.

As you said in another thread - in terms of the two shooting fouls, the NCAA created this mess. Let them deal with it.

Section 23 Art. 1 of the 2013-2014 NFHS Rule Book says "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting the opponent". This part comes before the guidelines you quote.

IMO, the defender in Play #1 does not get to the spot first and before contact is made. He has to have both feet on the playing court at the spot of the foul, and be the first at the spot, to satisfy both parts of legally guarding an opponent plus obtaining legal guarding position.

You're completely ignoring the part that says "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent". The defender in this case does not satisfy that part, so whether or not he had LGP (which is discussed after that quote) doesn't matter.

Not if he has already established LGP.

How did the defender illegally contact the opponent? He does not have to have both feet on the floor to maintain LGP which, at that point, is all he's doing since he'd already obtained LGP when the offensive player was 10-15 feet away from him and he's moving laterally, which is legal given he's maintaining LGP.

LGP doesn't matter. I'll write it again...

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets their first without illegally contacting the opponent." - Page 33, Section 23 ART. 1 of the 2013-2014 NFHS Basketball Rules book

Whether or not you think the defender had LGP is moot, as the dribbler has the right to that spot too. The defender did NOT get their first.

No, he doesn't have to have both feet on the court to "maintain" LGP. I never said he did. I said he had to have both feet on the court, at the point of contact, in order for me to deem him there first and call a PC foul.

Who got to that spot first absolutely matters.

This is not accurate.

Then how do you define a player getting to a spot first?

LGP does matter. He was in a LGP and did get to the spot prior to the offense. I think the first play could have been a play on, but in my opinion if you have a call, I would have a PC. One thing I don't see is the offensive player getting past the shoulders of the defense.

You can't have it both ways. Your criteria are self-contradictory. You're basically saying he doesn't have to get the feet down to maintain LGP but he has to get the feet down to maintain LGP (which is getting to the spot first).

Getting to the spot first after already having LGP has nothing to do with the feet. It is about the space...where the torso's meet. Defender clearly got that first.

Calling it the way you're suggesting is just screwing defenders....that makes playing good defense an impossible task.

I've been looking hard at the play and reading the rule book over and over, as I've been involved in debate concerning plays like this before, and I will concede to this...

If both players got to the spot at the same time, then a PC call should be made. The defender had more of a right to that spot as he moved laterally, and not towards the dribbler, after having gained LGP beforehand.

My problem with that is that I don't like the "same time" thing. One player beat the other to the spot, so make a choice. It's like when I was an umpire, and you'd have a "bang-bang" play at a base, and you'd hear somebody say "tie goes to the runner." Well, there is no such thing as a tie. Somebody touched the base first, so make a decision.

I've called plenty of fouls against the offense, so don't worry... I'm not screwing defenders or making playing good defense an impossible task.

Having both feet down at the spot of contact is the way I'm defining getting to that spot first. How would you define getting to a spot first, which would satisfy the first part of legally guarding a player?

That's what I'm talking about. I'm not going to argue against somebody else's judgment.

I do not need to belabor the point. You really need to learn what LGP is and what it is to maintain LGP.

The defender never moved toward the ball handler.

Peace

Initial LGP, yes a player has to have both feet on the floor and facing the offensive player, however, keeping both feet on the floor is not a requirement for maintaining LGP. The defense may move laterally, or obliquely.

Thank you for addressing my concern over the part of the rule book that talks about a player getting to a spot first.

So, a player who is out of bounds and jumps back onto the court and has one foot on the floor inbounds and one foot in the air. Where is his spot? Inbounds or out?

Freeze everything just before contact.
1. Did the defender do anything illegal to get into that position (feet are irrelevant)? No.
2. Did the defender have LGP (feet were relevant at the point it was obtained). Yes....for a long time.
3. Was the defender (the torso) in the path of the opponent? Yes....that is being in the spot.
4. Was the defender moving toward the opponent? No.
5. Unfreeze....contact.
Charge.

You're adding your own requirement to getting to the spot that isn't supported in the rules...and making it a lot harder to make the call since you're making yourself have to split hairs with every little twitch the defender makes in order to decide block/charge....and the error will always penalize the defense.

Actually, you are putting defenders at a disadvantage if you require them to have "both feet down at the spot of contact." That's not part of the rule.

Let's break this down.

Here's a picture of the moment the defender obtained LGP.

http://i40.tinypic.com/nvzg4l.jpg

At this moment the defender is guarding the ballhandler/dribbler. From that point on, the defender can move any direction he wants as long as he's not moving forward into the ballhandler/dribbler when/if contact takes place.

Now, here's a picture of the moment right before contact.

http://i42.tinypic.com/24o22vp.jpg

I'm not going to post frame-by-frame shots but you said yourself the defender was moving laterally at the moment of contact. Given the defender was moving laterally after obtaining - and never losing - LGP and the ballhandler/dribbler did not get head and shoulders around the defender, what - by rule - was the defender doing wrong at the time of contact? Keep in mind, the defender maintained LGP through the entire play meaning he's not required to have either or both feet on the floor when contact takes place to remain legal.

Play 1: No call.

Play 2: No call.

Play 3: Charge.

Play 4: Black ball.

This is what I'm hearing...

Once the defender has gained initial LGP the dribbler has to go around the defender without any contact. Provided that the defender never makes a move towards the dribbler.

So unless it's clear that the dribbler gets to a spot first, and is then "run into" by the defender, we have a PC foul.

Others addressed that issue. Whether you listen is then or not is up to you.

Peace

Too much emphasis on getting to the spot first. If both players are moving, they get to the point of contact at the same time. Then the issue is whether LGP was established followed by the direction of the players movement relative to each other.

Thank you for putting it in simple terms. Call me an idiot if you want, but I feel the thing I was mainly referring to (getting to the spot first) was not being addressed. People were instead bringing up other parts of the rule on legally guarding a dribbler (gaining initial LGP).

Does the rule include the word "spot"?

Yep...

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." - Section 23 ART. 1

Well, if you want to really break it down that with rule, how did the offense get there first? If spot is defined by the feet being down, were his feet both on the spot?

Fair question, and to be honest I was only looking at the fact that the defender's feet had not gotten to the spot first. A mistake on my part.

But you should have a better idea if you are basically trying to convince a room full of people about the rule. A lot of people you are debating with are not rookies or inexperienced officials. And this is not the first time this kind of conversation has been had here. You need to define your position better than this if you feel we are all wrong.

The rule you are referencing is about positioning on the floor, not involving a ball handler. LGP is primarily a rule for contact with a ball handler or airborne shooter and what a player can or cannot to be legal. Even screening rules do not apply to this situation.

Peace

And this rule is about a player standing on a spot and how someone cannot take their position away legally.

LGP and screening rules do not apply here.

Peace

Ah, I see. I meant the LGP rule(s) which are key when discussing block/charge. In this case the discussion on whether the defender is legal is more important. That is why everyone is responding to you using the LGP language.

As JRut pointed out, the "spot" rule refers to displacement of a player, a block/charge play is different.

Anybody can read a text book to a student, but they are not all teachers. A real teacher will take the facts presented in the text book and form them in a way in which the student understands. JAR did that by addressing the "got to the spot first" part I was hung-up on, whereas others just kept throwing various other rules such as LGP out at me.

Next time, try seeing where the person is coming from, and going from there.

This is a reverse example of how the term LGP can cause confusion. Usually it involves a defender who is stationary but not facing the dribbler or running parallel to the dribbler being knocked to the floor and being called for a block. "It has to be a block. He didn't have LGP." In this case it is clear that LGP was established, but when (improperly) combined with the "first to the spot" concept, well...........

My judgment of the play was that the defender did not get to the spot first, and therefore the contact (aka "displacement") was his fault. However, it was pointed out to me that the dribbler didn't necessarily get to the spot first either. Therefore, due to the defender having gained LGP earlier, and having not moved towards the dribbler, the contact is the fault of the dribbler... hence a PC foul.

BTW, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm a fifth year official, who has much to learn (I've actually been told that you never stop learning). I'm sharing my understanding of a rule, which not only tries to help others but gives me the chance to learn as well when others respond.

If the responses I get are not helping me to understand why I'm wrong, then I'm going to continue pressing. If I didn't do that, then I'd be citing a website when explaining a call, rather than citing the rules and how they are properly applied to a situation.

Perhaps these two Case plays will help your understanding. They both clearly demonstrate that a defender does not have to have both feet on the court at the time of contact (in fact, a defender could even jump vertically and still draw a charge while not touching the court at all).

10.6.9 SITUATION:

Dribbler A1 has established a straight-line path toward a certain area of the court. Can A1 maintain this specific path?

RULING: Only to the extent that no opponent who is behind or to the side can crowd A1 out of this path. Opponents may attempt to obtain a legal guarding position in A1's path at any time. To obtain an initial legal guarding position, both feet of the guard must be on the court and the guard must be facing the dribbler prior to contact. Time and distance are not factors in obtaining an initial guarding position on an opponent with the ball. Once legal position is obtained, the guard can move to maintain position in the dribbler's path. The requirement of having two feet on the court does not apply in maintaining a legal guarding position, provided the guard maintains in-bound status. (4-23)

4.23.3 SITUATION B:

A1 is dribbling near the sideline when B1 obtains legal guarding position. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the sideline or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds area when A1 contacts B1 in the torso.

RULING: In (a), B1 is called for a blocking foul because a player may not be out of bounds and obtain or maintain legal guarding position. In (b), A1 is called for a player-control foul because B2 had obtained and maintained legal guarding position. (4-23-2; 4-23-3a)

It does help... thanks. I was simply hung-up on the part about a player needing to get to the spot first.

You told me something I already knew or could tell. And the reason is you are confusing rules situation with each other. LGP is all about what a defender can do to be in the way of a ball handler. Not associated with the "spot" reference you are speaking on.

I cannot speak for why you do not understand something. That might have to do with training, inexperience or reading too much into the rules. Maybe no one has sat you down with video or other training materials, I have no idea. You are only wrong in your reference that the defender that is backing up did not get to a spot. That does not make any since if you ask me. And people have cited you the rule by talking about LGP. If you need the exact location that is a problem too considering that this is in the definitions and I would think someone even with your experience level would know where to easily find that definition.

Since you have no idea, you need to read over Rule 4-23. It even talks about the differences between a player with the ball and a player without the ball and what is allowed when contact occurs.

Peace

Blocks all the way -- sort of...
 

I'm sure my judgement will be harshly criticized (a trend lately in many posts) but I don't have a problem with all three being called blocks. Without the benefit of slow motion the calling official may seen the shooter collect the ball and then the defender slide over so it looked more like a block. In high school I would be morelikely to call this a charge but in ncaa I see all three as 50/50 in real time.

Also, I always try to remember what we see from our angle on the floor is completely different than what the bench, the bleachers, the replay, and even the crew see from theirs. Just because I may see something differently than what was called or what others see in reviewing the tape doesn't necessarily mean I am a better (or worse) official than the next guy.

And, as long as I'm in preach mode, experience doesn't always equal competence so all questions, comments, and opinions should be welcomed in our professional discussions on the forum.

It is one thing to say I have a judgment difference and try to argue a point based off of an incomplete understanding of a rule. No one is saying anyone at any experience or level should not speak. But it is another thing when you are debating with people giving you a rule and you focus on a small part of a rule that does not focus on the play at hand.

Peace

Two others have been able to explain things. What does that tell you?

Thank you for trying to help, but you're now coming off as condescending.

A lot of people gave you the actual rules that applied. You were still asking for explanations. What should that tell me? ;)

You can make this about others all you like, but the reality is that you were debating this with many people that not only were disagreeing with you, but have been officiating longer than you. That tells me more. Nothing wrong with being young and confident, but just know who you are talking to in these discussions. This IMO was not even close of a debate based off of rules alone. And we have extensive rules debates on this site as well.

Peace

Play 1: PC, or tell defenders they have to be matadors.

Play 2: PC, even under new rule.

Play 3: I can live with a block, new rule makes it hard. Lead can't see thru bodies to see when upward motion started.

It looks like he got halfway to a PC signal (hand behind head) but changed his mind and an "armbar" signal was easier than a block signal. Should have stuck with his initial instinct in my opinion as this looked like a PC foul to me.

Play 1 is a bang/bang play, I thought block when I saw it, but I can see a charge on replay

Play 2 HS charge - NCAAM block - I thought he made a little hop to get his position somewhere between the shooters upward motion starting and leaving the floor. That lateral movement would have been much more pronounced from L (weak running block signal doesn't help sell the call at all)

Play 3 HS charge (all day) - NCAAM - my initial reation was charge, but there may be some slight lateral movement after upward motion began.

1. Charge
2. No Call
3. Charge
4. Black Ball