PC, Block or No-Call (video)

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Then what does it mean?

It means, call the game consistently. If a crew "no calls" something they think is worthy a no call on one end, no call it on the other.

But, that doesn't mean a 'no call' is the only option the next time there are bodies on the floor. If there is a foul, call the foul.

In either case, just be consistent.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

It means, call the game consistently. If a crew "no calls" something they think is worthy a no call on one end, no call it on the other.

When "it" happens on the other end, it may be very similar, but still be worthy of a whistle.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When "it" happens on the other end, it may be very similar, but still be worthy of a whistle.

Don't pull a xxxxx and only report a snippet. If you quoted his whole post you would have seen that he clearly says cover the foul if it's there.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by deecee

Don't pull a xxxxx and only report a snippet. If you quoted his whole post you would have seen that he clearly says cover the foul if it's there.

That's right. That what renders the main theme useless.

This play was a no call. So if you have a similar play it should be a no call. Unless there's a foul, then you call a foul.

Be consistent.


Just call the game, which is a series of plays, some of which may be quite similar, yet have no bearing on each other.

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Then the break down is roughly 25% blocks, 50%, no-calls, 25% charges.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

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).

[Multiple Sports]

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 !!!!

[mutantducky]

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.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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.