Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

[BryanV21]

Rule 4-23
ART. 5... Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.

I wouldn't treat the player receiving the ball as "an opponent with the ball", as in Article 4... where time and distance are not factors. By the time he caught and gathered the ball he had no chance to do anything with it (dribble, shoot, pass, or just stop with it), as the defender was less than two steps away.

Perhaps if the defender was within the offensive player's line of sight, then you can say the offensive player had enough of a chance to avoid contact. But since the offensive player was looking back and up at the pass, I would say without reservation that the defender was at fault for the contact.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Rule 4-23
ART. 5... Guarding a moving opponent without the ball:
a. Time and distance are factors required to obtain initial legal position.
b. The guard must give the opponent the time and/or distance to avoid contact.
c. The distance need not be more than two strides.

I wouldn't treat the player receiving the ball as "an opponent with the ball", as in Article 4... where time and distance are not factors. By the time he caught and gathered the ball he had no chance to do anything with it (dribble, shoot, pass, or just stop with it), as the defender was less than two steps away.

Perhaps if the defender was within the offensive player's line of sight, then you can say the offensive player had enough of a chance to avoid contact. But since the offensive player was looking back and up at the pass, I would say without reservation that the defender was at fault for the contact.

Had the offensive player caught the pass before the contact took place?

He obviously had, so then he had the ball and time and distance are not factors.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Had the offensive player caught the pass before the contact took place?

He obviously had, so then he had the ball and time and distance are not factors.

Rule 4-12
ART 1... A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

The player is clearly not dribbling the ball at the time of contact, so would you say he is holding it? I wouldn't. Because when I read the dribbling part of the equation, "holding" tells me the player is standing still with the ball... which the player clearly isn't standing still with the ball.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Rule 4-12

so would you say he is holding it?

Yes. He firmly possesses it in both of his hands. That's all that is required. You're adding additional criteria that doesn't exist in the rule book.

Like it or not, a player with the ball, no matter how long they have had it, is expected to stop on a dime in this situation.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Yes. He firmly possesses it in both of his hands. That's all that is required. You're adding additional criteria that doesn't exist in the rule book.

Like it or not, a player with the ball, no matter how long they have had it, is expected to stop on a dime in this situation.

The offensive player had no chance to catch that ball, which he is entitled to provided he doesn't push another player to do so, and avoid contact.

On the other hand, the defender had more than enough opportunity to set himself up in a way to avoid a collision.

I know the rule book doesn't use fairness, but if I can interpret a rule in a such a way to make things fair... I will.

PS... this is why I said what I did about the rule book being set-up to favor the defense. Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact. That is, unless you say he shouldn't be allowed to catch that ball in the first place.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I know the rule book doesn't use fairness, but if I can interpret a rule in a such a way to make things fair... I will.

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

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The offensive player had no chance to catch that ball, which he is entitled to provided he doesn't push another player to do so, and avoid contact.

On the other hand, the defender had more than enough opportunity to set himself up in a way to avoid a collision.

I know the rule book doesn't use fairness, but if I can interpret a rule in a such a way to make things fair... I will.

PS... this is why I said what I did about the rule book being set-up to favor the defense. Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact. That is, unless you say he shouldn't be allowed to catch that ball in the first place.

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.

[johnny d]

[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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

[walt]

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.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The offensive player had no chance to catch that ball, which he is entitled to provided he doesn't push another player to do so, and avoid contact.

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.

On the other hand, the defender had more than enough opportunity to set himself up in a way to avoid a collision.

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.

I know the rule book doesn't use fairness, but if I can interpret a rule in a such a way to make things fair... I will.

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

[zm1283]

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.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Calling a PC foul on the guy catching the ball is not fair at all. He had no chance to avoid the contact. That is, unless you say he shouldn't be allowed to catch that ball in the first place.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The offensive player had no chance to catch that ball,

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?