Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play
 

This play is being discussed in the Facebook group...close play...what say you?

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/vagq4wiSw18" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have a charge. Not that close, really, just happened quickly. Tie goes to the offense, even when it's not a tie.

Defender was there. Offense had the ball. No time/distance required. Charnge.

Maybe the official thought the white player had gathered the ball for a try? ;)

PC. Time & distance is not required since A3 had the ball.

Perfect description
 

A carnage charge: Charnge!

Now that's funny.

PC. Ship it!

And for anybody wanting to say that time/distance is required here....just please don't.

100% charge.

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.

So you are saying that you would categorize the player with the ball as an "opponent without the ball". Interesting as with or without the ball is a pretty black or white thing. He either has it or he doesn't. In this case he has it. What does line of sight have to do with anything, I don't think the rule book mentions that exception.

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.

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.

I have a feeling you have a hard time getting many of these block/charge plays correct in your games. The last two plays you have debated the calls based on rules interpretations that are clearly wrong. The Texas player has the ball, time and distance are irrelevant, it is that simple. I think you are interpreting rules through the prism of your biased belief that the rules favor the defensive player.