Block/PC + Positioning (video)

[JetMetFan]

Utah again. This is actually two plays/instances of contact in one clip.

The positioning of the T is a concern but this is why I get annoyed when two-person crews are used in HS tournament games on NCAA courts. We get overly concerned with being beaten to the other end. It appears Utah uses three-person crews at its highest levels (4A & 5A). This game is 2A.

[MD Longhorn]

PC ... then block.

[Blindolbat]

No call on the 1st, but I wouldn't argue if someone wanted to call that a PC.
On the 2nd I've got a PC.

[JRutledge]

First contact looks like an off balance defender. The second contact is a block.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

First could be a PC, but likely leaving it alone is best.
The second is a CLEAR PC. The defender obtains LGP prior to contact and the offensive player gets no time or distance as he has the ball. Pausing the video proves this.

[BryanV21]

I think I'm leaving the first part alone. The dribbler doesn't appear to extend an arm to push, and the defender only moves as much as he does because he's so much smaller... not because he was pushed hard. I see too often where a foul is called on somebody just because they are bigger and going against a smaller player who falls.

I agree that the second is a PC foul, as I see the defender gain LGP against the second dribbler before getting pushed to the floor.

[Toren]

Ants vs. Elephants

The elephant is the offensive player using his off arm to displace the defender. PC.

The ant is everything else.

[Pantherdreams]

Depending on the level of physicality allowed and for consistencies sake these either have to be PC's or no calls.

Would love to know what the rationale for a block on that play is for the official.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Toren

Ants vs. Elephants

The elephant is the offensive player using his off arm to displace the defender. PC.

The ant is everything else.

I see the arm as the ant. It had little to do with anything.

I'm OK with a no call on the first.

On the 2nd contact, it is hard to tell from the video angle but it appears the defender may be stepping into the dribbler making it a block.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Toren

Ants vs. Elephants

The elephant is the offensive player using his off arm to displace the defender. PC.

The ant is everything else.

Thought you were referring to the size of the teams at first Talk about a size mismatch! Looked like the shortest player on orange could be the power forward for white.

I think the second contact was enough to deserve a PC call

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I think I'm leaving the first part alone. The dribbler doesn't appear to extend an arm to push, and the defender only moves as much as he does because he's so much smaller... not because he was pushed hard. I see too often where a foul is called on somebody just because they are bigger and going against a smaller player who falls.

I agree that the second is a PC foul, as I see the defender gain LGP against the second dribbler before getting pushed to the floor.

I haven't seen the video, but I don't follow your logic. Knocking a player to the floor doesn't become incidental just because of a size difference.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

I haven't seen the video, but I don't follow your logic. Knocking a player to the floor doesn't become incidental just because of a size difference.

What I failed to make clear in that post is that I believe the size difference can make slight contact, which may not be enough to draw a foul, look like more. Which could be what is going on here.

I see it more in lower level games, where some kids grow fast while others grow slowly, so you end up with kids that weight significantly more than others. So contact between the two may look like a whale, but in reality the contact comes from legal play between two players.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

What I failed to make clear in that post is that I believe the size difference can make slight contact, which may not be enough to draw a foul, look like more. Which could be what is going on here.

I see it more in lower level games, where some kids grow fast while others grow slowly, so you end up with kids that weight significantly more than others. So contact between the two may look like a whale, but in reality the contact comes from legal play between two players.

Perhaps, but sometimes contact that would be legal between two similarly sized players is a foul when one is sufficiently bigger that less severe contact knocks the player down.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

Perhaps, but sometimes contact that would be legal between two similarly sized players is a foul when one is sufficiently bigger that less severe contact knocks the player down.

True. The size of players involved can often deceive.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

What I failed to make clear in that post is that I believe the size difference can make slight contact, which may not be enough to draw a foul, look like more. Which could be what is going on here.

I see it more in lower level games, where some kids grow fast while others grow slowly, so you end up with kids that weight significantly more than others. So contact between the two may look like a whale, but in reality the contact comes from legal play between two players.

Still not sure I follow your logic on this. The level of contact, across the spectrum from slight to severe, has no bearing on whether or not a foul has been committed. If the contact affects a players RSBQ or causes them to be displaced from a legally obtained position, it is a foul. In some cases, the contact might be slight and also constitute a foul and in other cases, the contact could be severe and be legal. Under no circumstance is it acceptable to use the size of the players involved to determine if contact is legal/illegal.