Video Request - Colorado/Stanford - Block/Charge
 

When someone has a chance, could you post the block/charge call at 2:01 in the 2nd half of the Colorado/Stanford game?

Thanks.

video added
 

Here's the play...


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PfQIGYp_qM8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you don't want to call the travel, (and they don't) it's a charge.

Tough Call ...
 

Tough call. I don't like the defender sliding to his right, maybe on time, or maybe a little late, and sticking out his right knee. Since I'm not a college official, I'll defer to others more knowledgeable, but I might lean toward a block in real time, in my high school game. It's that knee that keep bugging me because in real time, on the floor, that might be something that I would see, question, and probably influence my call for right, or for wrong.

I'm not in the "I hate traveling" club but I don't see one. I have him ending his dribble with both feet in the air then the right foot comes down. It doesn't come back down again until after the contact.

He dragged the right foot six inches before he lifted it. This would be easy to miss in real time.

I'm pretty sure I don't have travelling here... and I had PC on the first camera angle.

Second camera angle, I'm not actually positive these two players touch each other.

I have to admit I don't see the traveling. Either way it's a PC to me.

PC foul. Not an upward motion play.

Obviously I see no travel.

Peace

I think the issue on the travel call (which you don't clearly see until the 2nd angle) the right foot never gets lifted it gets drug most of the way across the floor. Which is funny? ironic? because if he flits it he's ok footwork wise.

I like the PC call here. Think its the right call.

Yes, he did travel. But, I don't think it would be one that would be caught.

Ignoring that, it was a PC. Defender had LGP and moved laterally to maintain it staying in the path of the opponent 100% of the time.

That's a PC foul every time this play occurs.

There is no travel, unless you going to ignore that PC foul and THEN pay attention to footwork.....of course it was the defender being knocked over that caused the offensive player to travel.

I see them as making contact but I don't see the "to and through." Defender was already going backward-ish (legally) and I see the contact (at 0:29 of the vid) as slight at most. At game speed, though, I see myself shipping it as well.

That's not getting called. And I'm happy it's not, too.

this was an interesting one.
I first thought charge but after seeing it again I agree with BillyMac. The defender was there so the offensive player took a side step to allow himself to get by. I thought the defender moved into the path of the Stanford player and wasn't established. I'd go with a block but a difficult play to call for sure.


look how they banged knees at the 30 second mark. ouch

You just described what a defender is permitted to do to maintain LGP.

The player, once establishing LGP, is allowed to move laterally to maintain it.

But from my point of view the defender moves laterally into the path of the offensive player. Which is legal sure, but I see the defender moving to the side and back without an established defensive position. The offensive player makes a move to get to the side and the defensive player gets in his way. I'd have gone with a block, but again, a very mild disagreement. good play to view

Exactly what is it you require for a defender to get LGP that this guy is missing?

You are adding criteria that is extraneous and doesn't meet the checklist criteria for a charge:

1. Did the defender initially have LGP (both feet on floor and facing opponent)? - YES

2. Did the defender move legally (laterally or backwards, not towards the opponent) to maintain his position? - YES

3. Did contact occur at the defender's torso before the offensive player got his head and shoulders past the defender? YES

Charge

No travel and PC. I could see a no-call here too, the contact was so minor. Lord knows we have seen no-calls with much more severe contact.