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.

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.

10.6.11D (b). 2012-13 book (what I have handy)

My typo.

I don't like that the rule book does not take into account a player looking away from the defender in order to catch a pass, but alas... it doesn't.

This would fall under ART. 5 of the section on guarding, as the defender was initially defending a moving opponent without the ball. To obtain LGP in this case time and distance are factors. However, when the defender got set the offensive player had time and space to avoid contact... he just didn't see that he had to do so. Unfortunately for myself and that offensive player, being able to see the defender being set doesn't matter. It should... but it doesn't.

deecee mentioned that line of sight doesn't matter, and I missed that.

I don't have that one handy, so I'll take your word for it.

I couldn't stop myself from finding last year's case book and looking up that play. Good looking out.

You don't have to like it. Many of us don't like the "fashion police" rules but they exist and we're supposed to adjudicate them.

You're correct in one aspect: B1 was initially defending an opponent who did not have the ball. However, when the offensive player gains control of the ball his/her status and the rules governing the player defending him/her change. There's nothing in the rules that says "the offensive player must be able to see the defender before (s)he can be called for a foul." By rule, once the offense has the ball avoiding contact with a defender who has established and maintained LGP is on the ball handler/dribbler.


As for this earlier statement, try this: A1 takes a jump shot and it's rebounded by airborne B1. When B1 secures the rebound, B1 has player control even though (s)he may not have returned to the floor. I think it's safe to say in that scenario that B1 is not standing still.

10.6.11 D

A1 is running toward A's goal but is looking back to receive a pass. B1 takes a position in the path of A1 while A1 is 10 feet away from B1. (a) A1 runs into B1 BEFORE receiving the ball; or (b) A1 receives the ball and BEFORE TAKING A STEP contacts B1.

RULING:

In both (a) and (b) A1 is responsible for the contact.

In (a), B1's position is legal if A1 has been given two steps prior to contact.

In (b), since the position of B1 is legal when A1 HAS THE BALL, the contact is charging by A1.

Yup. (a) is a screening play governed by time/distance. (b) is not. It's an LGP block/charge play.

I said this in another thread, it's one thing to disagree about judgment, quite another to tell veterans their interpretation of a rule is wrong.

And this is coming from one of the very few posters (maybe the only) who agreed with it being a block. But that is based on what I perceived as forward movement by the defender, not a non-existent interpretation of a rule.

Your career will hit a dam if you continue swimming up stream.

I'm surprised anyone's trying. I gave up at "If I can interpret ..." something to fit his own sense of fairness, he's going to do so. Nevermind that we have Rules Interpretors whose jobs it is to do this interpreting for us and tell us how the entity we work for wants us to officiate. Interpretation is apparently something left to his own whim to allow him to enforce his own personal sense of justice, and to fight the good fight against the obvious bias of the rules in favor of the defense...

He has no interest in learning what the RIGHT answer is if he can justify in his own mind continuing with the wrong answer. We've all worked with that guy in the past. It's always a freaking mess. Sometimes these guys can be caught as rookies and fixed. But by his own words, his career path is just fine thankyouverymuch... Trying to fix it is a waste of time.

I'm fine with what he is doing. Some people (myself included) prefer to not just accept the status quo right away, and take longer to grasp why certain rules are the way they are.

BryanV21 has shown a willingness to learn and change his viewpoint in other threads (as well as this one) so I will give him some rope.

Throughout this thread we've made a big deal of whether A1 is holding the ball or not, but does it really matter in this case? Let's say he's looking over his shoulder and plows the defender before touching the pass. Is that not also a foul on A1 as long as B1 has established his spot on the floor? LGP doesn't apply anymore since there is no possession.

Screening rules apply.

You have missed the crux of the discussion. 2 different scenarios with 2 different outcomes.

What's the key difference between LGP rules and screening rules? There's the answer to why this really matters in this case. :)

NFHS Screen Rules 4-40-5 and 7 would apply. And the officials' judgement of whether the screener is "outside the visual field" of the moving player would affect the call/no-call.

I'm really not trying to argue, just want to make sure I understand. How would screening rules apply? Why would a defensive player be screening an offensive player on an out of bounds play?

If a defensive player is standing in a spot on a floor, under what circumstances would it be OK for an offensive player, with the ball or without, to run them over?

Again, please don't take my question as being argumentative, I just want to make sure I understand what is at play here.

If B1 establishes position within A1's field of vision, B1 has to stop short of contact and give A1 a chance to stop or avoid him same as if one of A1's teammates is setting a screen within B's field of vision. If B1 is outside of A1's field of vision, he has to give A1 a minimum of space just like a screen being set outside of field of vision.

Screening has a rulebook definition beyond the usual notion of the offensive player "setting a screen."

My office neighbors are wondering why I'm chuckling! :)

No one is making the offensive player not look where he is going. The real fault in this play is the his teammate who threw the pass that led him into a charge.

I think everyone is right by rule that it is a charge, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that it should be a block. It's a total BS play.

So a ballhandler just has to look away and the contact is the defenders fault?:rolleyes:

No, I think he would apply time and distance rules in this case if he had a choice. IOW, two steps like on a screen.

I can see why it's called a block. Looks to me the defender is moving forward when the contact happens, or least leaning forward and into the offensive player.

I tend to concur...but I'd still charge this.

Bryan, there is only one ruleset where your interp holds water, but I don't think you've attained that lofty level.

My intention is to understand a rule entirely, not just accept what the right call is and move on to the next play. That could very well mean reading into things too much. However, if the end result is a better understanding of the rule, then so be it. Down the road it will make me a better official.

I'm sorry if that stubbornness rubs any of you the wrong way. It's not meant to offend, it's meant to get more out of you.

Or maybe I'm just thick. I don't know. I have a better understanding of the rule, and I'm better for it. I could have just said "okay, it's a charge". But doing so would have been wrong of me. Unless I don't care.

Again... I'm sorry if that's too much for any of you to handle. I'm here to be better. If I make some friends, then that's great. I'd love that. But the bottom line is to be better, and due to my stubbornness I am.

I think it is a dumb offensive play to expect that you can fly down the court without looking where you're going. Even if the defender was there for 3-4 steps as the pass was coming in the offensive player would have still crushed him. Players have to be responsible for where they are moving.

Except most of the time, the defender isn't there for 3-4 steps and only attempts to take the charge at the last second. IMO, it' just a cheap way to try and play defense much like trying to run over and take a charge under the basket. The latter is all but gone from almost all levels of play...I wouldn't be surprised to see the former get eliminated by more than the NBA in the future.

I see this the same as I do when it comes to a receiver going for a pass in football.

If a receiver, who is watching the incoming pass not the defense, runs into a defender before making the catch it is the defender who is penalized... not the receiver.

In that case, should the receiver be penalized, while we praise the defender for doing a good job? And do so because the receiver should have looked where he was running? No.

BTW, I'm not using that football reference to say the defender in this thread should have gotten the blocking call. I'm merely showing how somebody could make a legitimate gripe about this rule.

On the flip side, I agree that any player should watch where they're going.

So I'm playing both sides here. :D

Not a good comparison. The defender in football has no incentive to get to a certain spot first and be stationary. On the contrary, he benefits from laying back and timing his arrival to coincide with that of the ball.

Blocking a player's desired path is the essence of defense. The offense is in control of where and when to throw the pass. Nothing makes them throw that pass. If they see a defender that can cut off their path, they should choose a different path....unless of course you would rather watch layup drills.

No one is disputing that your goal is good. Only that your methods of achieving that goal could be improved (and then maybe you'd advance to your goal more quickly and with other benefits).

It's something that popped in my head while watching the play.

Fair enough, and if you truly are here to learn, more power to you. Personally, you didn't rub me wrong through stubbornness. It was the comments on this and the other thread that you personally felt the game was skewed in one direction more than you like, and that if you could find a way to interpret a rule differently that what we're told so that you can further your personal opinion of fairness - that you would do so.

I have NO PROBLEM at all with you disagreeing with the pack and trying to understand where the difference lies (and heck .. maybe convincing those who disagree with you that you might be right - it happens)... I have HUGE issue with trying to instill your personal ideas of fairness on the game in contradiction with what the rules and the Rules Interpretors say.

I don't know why I said that, because you're right... that is messed up.

Agree with most that it is a charge. Any thoughts on that call belonging to the C instead of the L?

I wonder why the L is there at all. NCAA-M mechanic?

Anyone tempted to call this a travel? ;)

I did not see other comments, but I have a charge.

Defender was in LGP, got to that spot first and prepared for contact.

Once again we penalize defenders for doing nothing wrong or illegal too much.

Peace

Not necessarily a mechanic, but he could be more up the court to help out. But this really is the C's call most of the time.

Peace

And the C had a whistle and close down. The L sells it hard, so the C just held up on his signal, which is being a great partner.

Incidentally I have a PC.

I knew why that was the actions of the C, but that should have been his call to see. He can see between the bodies. The L is kind of looking behind. And in that case, the defender would get every benefit of the doubt from me if I was the L. I think the L forgot he has a partner looking dead across before coming hard with a call.

Peace

It would have been mildly entertaining to watch the C come out with a late PC to force a double foul. Wrong on many accounts but at least amusing.

Back in the old days before video, it always seemed to be the cop out. Unfortunately, there are still 2 or 3 guys in my area who would not hesitate to call the travel here.

I was just kidding, actually.

There are situations like this where there is a legitimate travel as the player recognizes the imminent contact, but this isn't one of them.

I knew YOU were kidding.

Perhaps it would be better than sticking the wrong player with the foul. :eek:

We should enforce the rules, not twist them to what we see as fair. That said, if you are looking for fair, I don't understand how punishing the defense for anticipating the play and getting to a spot legally is fair either. Think about this ... If a teamate throws the ball out of bounds, then he would not be allowed to legally catch it. You don't ignore the out of bounds rule because it seems fair to let the player have a chance to catch the ball. Likewise, if a teamate throws him the ball in a way that leads him into a collision with a defender, that doesn't mean you ignore the rule on charging because it seems fair to let the player catch the ball.

By the way, here's the case play from the NCAA (it's AR 85 in both rule books):

B1 takes a spot on the playing court before A1 jumps to catch a pass.
1. A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1; or
2. B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 comes to the floor on one foot and then charges into B1.
RULING: In both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1. In (1), B1 is entitled to that spot on the floor provided (s)he gets there legally before the offensive player becomes airborne. However, in (2), when A1 possesses the ball then lands on the floor, no time and distance is required.
(Rule 4-17.4.c and .d, 4-17.3 and Exception 4-17.7)

John Adams has ruled this play a "block" on today's Arbiter video bulletin #14; correct call.

Did he explain his reasoning?

Rule 4 Sec 17 Art 5 a thru d

Wow. Well wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with an officiating coordinator on a play.

Per the rulebook there's no way I can see that this is anything but a PC.

So basically John ruled that the Texas player did not have the ball. Thus, time/distance is a factor.

If that's the case, I'd like to know what it means to take a step and a half while firmly holding the ball?

So...should NCAAM expect a new interpretation as to what constitutes possession? :confused:

If I was Bill Self I'd send Adams a screen shot of the Texas player holding the ball with both hands while he was still at least one giant step away from my defender.

Maybe it'll look like the catch rule for NCAA football. :confused:

I know one thing, with what's been going on with the rules lately, I'd be smiling if I were an NCAA-W official.

You mean like me? :D

And here I was thinking the LDB and the RA would be a headache. Those are a piece of cake compared to this.

Eggsactly! ;)

Bryan:

First full disclosure: My mother graduated from Kansas and I am a Kansas fan, but people in the Forum will tell you I am always unbiased when it comes to officiaing.

Once the Texas player had control of the ball, the Kansas defender had established a LGP. Time and distance does not matter in this play nor does it matter whether the Texas player did or not see the Kansas player. This is a classic Casebook Play for a charge.

MTD, Sr.

+1

MTD, Sr.

I graduated from the University of Texas and fully admit I am likely biased in their favor... and this was a charge.

John Adams should be ashamed of himself. NCAA R4-S17-A5d has absolutely nothing to do with this play. 99.99% of the time I will not question an official's judgement call except when it comes to Guarding/Screening (block/charge) because if one knows the rule and referees the defense, the chances of missing this call is almost zero.

I am glad I retired from college ball after Junior's first hear of officiating (20017-08) because this type of nonsense coming John Adam's inexcusable.

It is a good thing that I am a calm and reserved person and have never suffered from high blood pressure or I would have been taken to the emergency room before I finished this post.

MTD, Sr.

Can somebody post verbatim what Adams had to say about this play (text is fine, don't need the rule)?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around how he can possibly justify saying 4-17-5 applies here.

His only comments were that it was a correct call per 4-17-5.a-d.

Hmm interesting yet puzzling. Wish he would have hashed this one out more.

He wasn't making these comments while visiting Colorado by chance, was he? :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2XUPMDMTs0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Way to show off, but ummmm, how come you don't have the 3D version? :cool:

Does anybody have John Adam's email address. It is time for basketball officials to address this gross misinterpretation of the rules. I am appalled that John Adams would make such a statement. I am appalled that a person in his position could be so ignorant for the rules and how they are applied. I have attended seminars that the late Edgar Cartotto had given on Block/Charge and John Adam's statements have to have him spinning in his grave.

MTD, Sr.