PC, Block or No-Call (video)
 

Thoughts...?


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/8C7WSBtsNVU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pc

Looks like a flop. I think I have a block considering the flop ended up tripping the player.

Peace

My thoughts as well. I also think the C could've picked up the block - or at least been more comfortable calling it - if he'd been at the FTLE as opposed to above the top of the key. Regardless, I don't think this was a play on.

PC, if I have a call.defense emblished some.

Block...defenders legs were real wide...he looks like he flopped...then tripped the shooter.

Not to start a storm here but in order:

1) I've got a PC. Player was in proper guarding position and offense intitated the contact. This has been something I've been looking at in therms of my officaiting and in games I can get ape of. IME, If we don't get these and call them charges you end up with the majority of 50/50 calls turn into 80/20 calls. Where defense gets called for the block at least 1/2 the time or more when trying to draw and charge and then no called to the point where only the most extreme pc's get called and they only get a charge go 10-20% of the time.

2) Even if you don't think the contact is enough to have caused him to go down and want to no call it, IMO, that is not flopping. I equate the term flopping with faking being fouled, he isn't faking contact that doesn't exist and as the defender is allowed to move backwards and absorb contact/protect themselves. If he doesn't want to stand there until you make the kid collapse his chest that's not faking being fouled.

The Oscars were last night. #24 black wasn't nominated.

I don't think there's any question that the defender exaggerated, but I think there was significant contact which was definitely initiated by the shooter.

Too many still believe this:

It can't be a charge because nobody fell down.

Who cares? The contact happened on the torso.

Defense had LGP. Offense created contact. BUT, that contact was not enough to send the defender down like that. The defender took himself out of the play by flopping. Therefore, it can't be a PC.

From the angle of this replay, easiest block call of the day. With a terrible angle, somebody might take the bait and call PC. Only 100% wrong call is a no call.

Flopping isn't only faking contact, it is also faking the amount of contact in an attempt to make the contact look worse than it was.....which is what this defender did.

True, but there's no rule against this. It may be counterproductive, but it's not illegal.

PC. Embellishment yes, but overembellishment (aka: flop) no. I've no-called over embellishments before, but I think I would have PC'd this play.

L is looking right at it though, and C let him take/not take it. If you are that L, do you have a problem with a C who came in and got that one?

I'm in the PC camp. But barely.

Nothing, but would not criticize anyone who called a block.

That was the definition of embellishment by the defender. He acts like he got RTFO and he barely got bumped.

Play is either a PC or nothing. The defender was legal and did nothing wrong, including falling down.
The Lead needs to determine whether the defender was knocked down or fell down trying to draw a whistle. That is his judgment call to make.
I'd have a big problem with either the C or T overriding his judgment and coming in with a call here. The Lead obviously has a good look at the play and doesn't need help.

I do agree with this. I don't think many guys I work with would care for the C coming in to get this when it's right in front of the Lead.

Sure it is. The rule is for faking being "fouled". It is not for faking contact. If the player wasn't fouled (which you judge by not calling a foul) but tried to make it look like he was fouled, then he faked being fouled.

We may not call it so strictly, giving the benefit of doubt in most cases, but that is what the rules say.

If he really got "fouled" he wasn't "faking being fouled" but rather exaggerating the effect of the foul. Is this a part of the rule? When I think of a T here I think of a true flop, a player who falls with little to no contact.

Defender embellished...no call on that.

I have a tripping foul on the defender afterward

Really? You think that the defender actively tripped the offensive player while on the ground?
This isn't a college game. Don't apply NCAA rules to the defender!

If he got fouled, then there would be a foul call against his opponent (by definition) If there isn't such a call, then you can't use the argument that he was fouled to say it isn't a fake.

Of course, I'm not saying this guy should be T'd, just commenting on what the really says. I passed on a far more egregious flop recently that was probably about as much of a flop as there ever could be. Why? It is not something that gets called and I'm not going to be a pioneer....but it was a flop.

What I'm saying is the fact that he embellished the contact should not keep a foul from being called if it otherwise would have, and I think sometimes it is.


Well, it's a T or nothing. If it's not called, it doesn't really matter what the rule says, you know, kinda like a travel. :)

I guess this is where we differ.

1- If he gets hit and goes down I don't know why. He could be embelishing, he could have been off balance trying to lean away to avoid/protect, he might just ahve bailed out because he doesn't like getting in the chest because he's a big pu$$. I can't make that judgement. A kid who barely gets hit and goes down is not "faking" being fouled/hit if only because you have no way of knowing what the thought process or motivation for going down that hard would be.

If the kid doesn't get touched and goes down as if he was u can pretty easily make the assumption he's faking something.

2 - The wording "faking being fouled" is inherently poor. To my mind the fake has to be for faking contact. If the fake isn't for faking contact, but rather faking a foul . . . how can anyone fake a foul. Its only a foul if we judge contact to be a foul. He can't fake blow your whistle for u? He can fake contact or fake excessive contact but until you blow your whistle its not a foul, and if you call it a foul he's not faking. If its only a foul if you call it then he can't fake what you are going to call. So by definition you could never actually call this if you interpretted foul literrally which is why I tend to infer that it must mean faking contact.

The C does not rotate fast enough to be coming in to make a call. Leads call all the way. If I choose, then I choose a PC.

This one is close IMO, as others have stated.

I will join the team of PC foul though. To me, in real time and replay-it looked like LGP was established and the defender took an elbow as the offensive player turned into him (initiating contact) while making his move to the basket.

JMHO....

I am going PC foul. It looks like the offense player smashes through the defense on this play. Defense established legal g position easily. I am shipping it the other way.

Come on, that is a really weak cop out. It isn't that hard to tell. I don't have to know what he was thinking when you can see what they do.

Except that isn't what the rule says at all.
What is all that silly stuff for. The rule isn't unclear like you're trying to make it. I agree that it may not be one we should enforce to the letter or even close but you're just making yourself look silly with all of those gymnastics you're having to go through to avoid taking the rule for what it is.

What NCAA-specific rule would that be?

NFHS 10-6-1
A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

The one which states that a player down on the floor doesn't have LGP (NCAA) as opposed to the NFHS ruling which states that he does have a legal spot and shouldn't be penalized unless he clearly grabs or purposely trips an opponent.

Both rulings have been posted on this forum several times in the past.

I don't see any of those that this defender did. His foot remained where it was when he had LGP...he didn't extended it or anything.

I don't think that matters in this case.

Forgot. I do that more often now.

This is probably considered a 50/50, which means the crew needs to be aware of a similar play yielding a similar (play on) result on the other end. ( Which does not mean the crew passes on everything similar. )

from video angle it looks like the O initiated the contact = PC. It looks like the L has a real good look/angle on it, should have called something.

Late in the game doesn't mean you don't apply the rules.

IMO

I have a PC.

If you don't have a PC because you think B1 flopped, then you have to call a tripping foul on B1.

This one has to have a whistle.

What a cowardly stance to avoid calling the foul.

B1 trips A1, that is plain as day. B1 wasn't already lying on the floor. And B1's right leg up in air at a 45 degree angle is not a legal guarding position. Please, get real.

PC or Block (trip). A no-call is an incorrect call.

I see A1 fall because his momentum has taken him through a stationary defender that has LGP. A block/trip would be a brutal call here IMO. Its PC or nothing. Or you could call a bail out travel I guess. :rolleyes:

Then what does it mean?

Having watched this game.
 

Everything about this play is consistent with the way this crew worked the game.

That might be because the C was too far back to get the best view of the play. The L was right there in pristine position. You pose a good question though. Working with two officials last night that I never worked with before we discussed this very thing in our pre-game. We suggested the L should make that call but if the play is on the side of the C it's his call. It's OK if a double whistle in which case they look to each other to determine the primary and then the call is made.

I agree with this description. B1's flop causes his right leg/foot to go in between A1's legs causing him to trip and fall. Two bodies on the floor in this particular plays needs a whistle, one way or the other.

Although L rotated pretty well, he didn't get positioned the way he needs to. He needs to be positioned 45 degrees towards the paint, not parallel to the baseline. Shoot, you could almost argue he's angled to some degree towards the sideline! One more step 'out' and getting 45 degrees could have given him a much clearer angle on this play.

That matches my opinion, but BNR doesn't care for it. I'm not going to result to insults though because someone doesn't agree with me.

I find that response hilarious. Didn't you invent the use of that word in the forum?

How does one have LGP when his foot is in the crotch of an offensive player?

Yes, he did.

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.

In fact, he is the reason I have that phrase under my name...LOL

That would explain why this flop was still occurring even late in the game. It wasn't dealt with early on.......

Behind the 8 ball from the get go. Not an enviable position.

Deja Vu
 

I had a very similar play last night and went PC. I think this one goes PC also even though there may have been some embellishment by the defender.

Good question if it were actually in his crotch. IBut, it was no where near his crotch. That foot was on the other side of the player and it didn't touch him...at least not in any way that had any bearing on what happened.

A1 went down because he stepped into B1's foot that was in the exact same spot at is was before B1 started falling backwards. In fact, I think A1's stumble actually had little to do with B1...it was coincidental.

I think this is a perfect example of a play that breaks the two whistles down must have a foul philosophy.

I think each player went to the floor more due to their own actions (flopping/embellishment and clumsiness) than the actions of their opponent. I don't think either player disadvantaged the other one.

Yeah, I see that now. But looking closer I see B1's left foot is on top of A1's left foot, thus when A1 goes to move/pick up his left foot he can't and it throws him off-balance.

BTW, it wasn't an issue during the game. I watched the entire contest and it was well-played and well-officiated. The kid flopped - for those who think he did - because it was late in the game and he wanted to draw a PC foul. Not an unusual occurrence.

Trust me, if it had been an issue I would've posted the video ;)

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.

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.

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.