Just a couple of followups to this thread that I don't think need their own but occur to me as I read responses. I will do my best to avoid gymnastics to not upset Cameron:

1 - Since a defender in LGP may move backwards or turn to maintain LGP or defend themselves. For those concerned with exaggeration or flopping as the reason to no call, can I assume that you don't consider falling backwards and moving backwards the same thing?

2 - If this list (obviously not totally encompassing) is the possible general scenarios in a block charge:

1 - Defender doesn't establish or maintain LGP and is responsible for the contact and we deem it a foul (block)
2 - Defender doesn't establish or maintain LGP and is responsible for the contact and we deem it is incedental (no call).
3 - Offensive player contacts a player in LGP and is responsible for contact and we deem it a foul (pc)
4 - Offensive player contacts a player in LGP and is repsonsible for contact and we deem it incedental (no call).

Then the break down is roughly 25% blocks, 50%, no-calls, 25% charges. This isn't the way its going to break down in a single game or series of plays but it does make me wonder. With the ball carrier getting RSBQ as ways in which they can be impeded and the defense really needing to be displaced to get the pc call. Take embellishment off the table (I'm sure both sides embellish; though its probably easier to try to simulate impeded, off stride, etc, than displacement in a non obvious way.) What do you think over time the real break down in games over time turns into? I ask because in our zone the more tape I watch its not close to this and I'm wondering if over time I shouldn't be seeing a more regular distribution.

This call is a PC or nothing. I'm definitely on the PC side - say 75/25.

If I no-call this play, there is no way in double-hockey-sticks I'm calling a trip by the defender. That would be the worst thing to do is the no-call, then a block by B.

As for an official other than the L getting this... when it comes to bailing out a partner, the rule of thumb I use if I see something that I believe my P missed and I say to myself "oh my", then I'm not stepping in. But if I say to myself, "oh. my. god." then I'm coming in with a whistle. I believe the L had a great look at the play.

Having said this, if we've had a very similar play this game ruled as a charge or block, then I'm coming in for consistency reasons.

you're assuming that the items in the list are random, and they are not.

don't know and don't care what the "right" distribution is.

Like.

When a coach says you called something different at the other end:

"John, plays are like snowflakes...." and then slowly walk away.

Looks like a typical curl play where the "C" was late getting into position and could have helped the 'L" with the initial forearm from the offensive player into the torso of the defender.
PC

Actually, there's something to that.

The L rotates and the (old) T doesn't recognize the rotation and takes a few steps to center court. It appears he's not on the ball anyway and might be ball-watching. Had he moved down as the C right as the L rotated, he might have been in a position to help out.

Then again, the L is right there and should have a good look. Still doesn't mean there isn't something here for the C to take away from the play.

I have no idea what the breakdown would tend to be but there are probably many more blocks than PCs. No calls vs fouls would be a lot more dependent on the threshold for foul vs no foul of each official (and the average for all officials in an area).

Stirring the pot !!!!!
 

If this is really a close play ( as many have indicated ), call a "block", home team is down 2, with a minute and change. Now they are at line with a chance to tie the score. As th late Art McDonald use to say, just make the last two minutes a free throw contest each team gets to the line 10 times. Whoever make more ft's will win the game !!!!

I think this is the best so far. Looks to me like the shooter also embellishes trying to draw a call as well.

How bout this though? Would any one passion the defender flop and then after the shooter gets tripped up come in with the PC very late?

I don't get the debate over this.
There is no way that is a charge. Contact between both players. Just normal interior D but in this situation the defender falls down(probably a flop) which leads to the offensive player being tripped. It should have went No call then a foul called for tripping.

I think the issue that is being debated is that the offese is intiating contact into a defender who isn't doing anything wrong.

Now at this point camps divide:

A) He's getting hit and its displacing him PC.

B-1)He's getting hit but is embellishing that contact, so its his acting not the contact that disadvantages him. No Call

B-2) Same as B-1 + His acting equates to faking being fouled so should this be ignored, warned or T'd.

C) If you no call the contact as marginal, but the offensive player trips/stumbles/travels? avoiding and/or getting tangled up in the player on the floor what do you call. Because if you call a foul on defender who went to the floor after contact by the offense, which then put the offense off balance and in a position to be fouled by the player he intially contacted you are in a sticky wicket in terms of needing to explain/justify. Particualrly since all the debate over the video would indicate what one person is seeing is not how other qualified people see it.