Block/Charge

[tomegun]

After all the discussion concerning plays in the men's NCAA and a play in the Uconn/Stanford women's game I just saw, this thought come to mind - if a block/charge play is close, we should just call whatever and keep it moving.

Honestly, it is starting to seem like some calls are more about what feels right or is more palatable - the path of least resistance - and not what is technically accurate.

These are tough plays and I don't want to criticize the officials working because...they are working the best games, but some of these plays make you go, "Mmm, that was a block?" I saw the same things in games I worked this season too - I could be doing the same thing. Could statistics and overanalyzing have made this worse than it should be?

[JRutledge]

It seems like these calls are predetermined, instead of calling what actually happens.

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It seems like these calls are predetermined, instead of calling what actually happens.

Peace

I agree.

[Pantherdreams]

I agree with the comments about predetermining or anticipating.

I also think that for the sake of consistency officials and crews want "like" plays to be called similarly. Maybe the difference between PC/Block is a step forward later or a half second but I don't think it always gets called on the merits of its own play as much as we got a couple a lot like this as blocks so the crew protects the shield a little bit. Similar to if one guy is letting them play we don't have the other officials calling it tight.

The most difficult part of the block charge for me in a lot of cases like this when I actually officiate, is who and what you can watch. Officiating the defense is fine but on bang-bang plays i need to be able to see what the defense is doing, the offensive player's feet, when a gather happens, when the upward shot is started, and at what point the defender stopped moving forward/ contact happens. Not just assuming based on what it looks like is going to happen. Defense might not be there when the offensive player goes to take the angle but if he slides in and the offensive player tries to pull up. I might have had a block on the drive it had kept going but now the offense has stopped moving so any contact as defense settles is probably incidental. Now I have to see when the ball actually gathered and lifted and I'm trying to track how the offensive player landed through the defender's body as they establihsh . . .it becomes problematic.

Basically on a lot of these right or wrong (an I know I have to get better) I will no call unless certain one way or the other. I won't call based on what i think happened.

[JRutledge]

I think block-charge is one of the easists things to call if you are doing the right things. The NCAA made this tougher by involving a subjective standard to the situation on only airborne players. The problem is IMO the officials have just went to a default mode of calling blocks. Many of these block-charge players have not involved an airborne player and certainly not the ones we have watched this past weekend.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think block-charge is one of the easists things to call if you are doing the right things. The NCAA made this tougher by involving a subjective standard to the situation on only airborne players. The problem is IMO the officials have just went to a default mode of calling blocks. Many of these block-charge players have not involved an airborne player and certainly not the ones we have watched this past weekend.

Peace

Jeff -

I know I've seen this on the forum before but didn't one of our members say Adams has told you guys "when in doubt, call a block?" If that's the case that's a huge problem right there. It doesn't even become a "50-50" call anymore.

[tomegun]

I don't remember if Adams said it like that, but maybe something similar. A couple posts up, is the poster saying he/she will call nothing on a questionable crash? If so, I think that is a mistake.

There are mechanics that we can apply to make calling these plays easier, but like Rut said complications were introduced.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Jeff -

I know I've seen this on the forum before but didn't one of our members say Adams has told you guys "when in doubt, call a block?" If that's the case that's a huge problem right there. It doesn't even become a "50-50" call anymore.

He might not have used those exact words, but he certainly made that suggestion or the NCAA put out they basically wanted more block calls.

The problem is this rule really was not very well thought out. They just adopted a rule from the NBA without really knowing how it was going to change things. Now they have many calls that are just bad IMO and do not even involve the rule they changed this for.

This is why you do not react and change rules overnight. But then again, this is what coaches do and that is who is on the committee for the most part.

Peace

[blindzebra]

It is what happens when you move away from NFHS and toward the NBA in rules and philosophy.

[APG]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

It is what happens when you move away from NFHS and toward the NBA in rules and philosophy.

NBA rules and philosophy would have a high percentage of the plays discussed this season on here as offensive fouls.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

NBA rules and philosophy would have a high percentage of the plays discussed this season on here as offensive fouls.

Agree...but when you try to apply the philosophy without defining it well and expect hundreds/thousands of officials to implement it correctly, you're going to get a mess. The NBA has a small enough number of officials that it is far easier to get them on the same page even if it isn't defined as well by way of their frequent communications and training.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree...but when you try to apply the philosophy without defining it well and expect hundreds/thousands of officials to implement it correctly, you're going to get a mess. The NBA has a small enough number of officials that it is far easier to get them on the same page even if it isn't defined as well by way of their frequent communications and training.

Of course, any institutional-wide changes are going to take time to assimilate. I think NCAA officials will have a good handle on the new upward motion plays within a season or two -- it just takes time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree...but when you try to apply the philosophy without defining it well and expect hundreds/thousands of officials to implement it correctly, you're going to get a mess. The NBA has a small enough number of officials that it is far easier to get them on the same page even if it isn't defined as well by way of their frequent communications and training.

This is exactly the problem. A smaller staff means you can do all kinds of things to give your staff information and give them one voice. The NCAA unfortunately has many voices. Yes, John Adams can speak, but they are given a lot of different infromation. Even their bulletins are not that extensive and only covers what recently happened.

Peace