In that case, your philosophy is going to destroy your career.

What are you talking about? the player catches the ball and takes about a step and a half.

Why does the defender have to set himself up in a way to avoid the collision, THATS THE PURPOSE OF TAKING A CHARGE.

Who cares about fair? Your fair is different than anyone elses. That is unfair to the other team.

[QUOTE=BryanV21;921096

PS... this is why I said what I did about the rule book being set-up to favor the defense.[/QUOTE]

If this is true, than we as officials are doing an extremely poor job officiating. I don't know what happens in the games you work, but in every game I have ever worked or watched, the overwhelming majority of the fouls called are on the defense. One would think that the fouls would at least be evenly split between the offense and defense if the rule book was so one-sided in the defense's favor.

It's one-sided in terms of block/charge calls, not all foul calls.

I appreciate the concern for my career, but it's going just fine. I have a full slate of games each season, and I get plenty of praise from fellow officials and assignors.

This isn't football, there isn't a process to a catch. What you're advocating has no basis in the rules or any better known calling philosophy that I'm aware of. He possessed the ball in his hands, that is all that is required. Had he fallen down after that he'd be guilty of traveling even though he didn't have a chance to do anything else with the ball.

But he didn't and wasn't required to by rule. He isn't obligated to avoid a collision, he's obligated to follow the guarding rules which he did.

That's fine but your interpretation runs contrary to the actual rules governing the play. That's a problem.

If catching a pass is not holding then what is? There is NOTHING in the rule book that says a player has to be standing still in order to be ruled as holding the ball. He catches it and is therefore in control of the ball. Once that happens, time and distance NO LONGER matter. This is a charge.

Why do I sense there is a trend developing with a certain poster?

I learned when I first came on here that if it's just you against everyone else, you're probably wrong.

PC foul.

If he can't catch the pass without charging through a legal defender, then no he shouldn't be allowed to catch the pass. What you are essentially saying is the defense should just get out of his way and not be allowed to guard him until he is under control. That doesn't make much sense.

It's this simple... You SHOULD.

This would be a good point except for the unfortunate fact that he DID catch that ball. It's remarkable when someone succeeds at doing something they had no chance to do, isn't it?

Speaking for HS BB only. I feel the reason we are at less than our level best is twofold.

1. Most HS games (especially boys) are officiated (here away) by older guys who have been around awhile. Older men are way less likely to embrace change, or do things differently. They are also way more likely to have an impact on the younger official. We sit around in our association meetings talking the good talk, and things just naturally go back to the way they were. The state will threaten to not schedule guys in the tournament for this and that, but it never seems to come to fruition.

2. The younger guys who are doing Varsity level contests are excellent in many cases. Their baby faces are their biggest road block. Coaches also talk the big talk about seeing the same guys at the end of the year, yet can't seem to pull the trigger when rating time comes. Conversely, these young officials don’t care about the HS tournament. They are going to camps, fit, athletic, and HS BB is losing many of them to small college BB.

I don't know if we are doing a bad job of officiating the block/charge or not. Rather it seems the block, as in college, is in most cases the easy way out.

See 10.6.11D (b) -- it's almost this exact play.

The player had the ball -- it's a charge.

You are wrong. Please see other posts as for the reasons why.

Is that case from the 2013-14 case book? Because 10.6.11 (b) in that case book seems to support my side.

In part a of the situation, the screener (A1) is called for a blocking foul, apparently because A1 is so close that B1 cannot avoid A1 and contact results.

The play here is NOT a screening play! Block/Charge plays and screening plays are not the same and the same principles DO NOT apply. Two different situations. I don't have my case book handy so I don't know the case play you reference but I am sure others will chime in.