Block/PC (video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

This is clearly a shooting foul.

Clearly? Maybe it's worth discussing, but "clearly"? I may, I said may, be inclined to agree but I don't think that it's as clear as you believe it to be. Like I said, it's certainly worth discussing.

"The trying motion must be continuous and begins after the ball
comes to rest in the player’s hand(s) on a try or touches the hand(s) on a tap, and
is completed when the ball is clearly in flight. The trying motion may include arm,
foot or body movements used by the player when throwing the ball at his/her basket".

[JetMetFan]

By virtue of being the guy who edited the clip I also can frame-by-frame the play pretty easily. I can post that later if anyone wants to see but suffice to say I still don't see the defender doing anything wrong.

After W23 established LGP and while she's straightening up within her vertical plane B13 enters W23's vertical space and contacts her torso. Essentially, W23 doesn't have the chance to create contact because B13 creates contact first.

If W23 was leaning forward into B13 outside her - meaning W23's - vertical plane I would agree with calling a block.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

After W23 established LGP and while she's straightening up within her vertical plane B13 enters W23's vertical space and contacts her torso. Essentially, W23 doesn't have the chance to create contact because B13 creates contact first.

If W23 was leaning forward into B13 outside her - meaning W23's - vertical plane I would agree with calling a block.

There is no such thing as straightening up with a vertical plane. She is either moving forward or not. A defender in their vertical plane who is moving forward is, by rule, not legal. By the very fact you're saying she was straitening up in her vertical plan, you are essentially saying her torso was indeed moving forward.

[JetMetFan]

How is there no such thing as straightening up within one's vertical plane? If she'd just been standing there all the time with her knees bent and then locked her knees while not going further forward than the front of her feet...

I know I've mentioned this before but a defender doesn't have to become a statue when establishing LGP. Here's the Verticality rule (I'm using the NCAA-W rule book since that's what's covered in the clip but it's the same for NFHS & NCAA):

NCAA-W 4-38
Art. 1. Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle of verticality are:
a. Legal guarding position must be established and attained initially, and movement thereafter must be legal.
b. From such position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within her vertical plane.
c. The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within her vertical plane while the defender is on the playing court or in the air.
d. The defender shall not be penalized for leaving the playing court vertically or having her hands and arms extended within the vertical plane.
e. The offensive player, whether on the playing court or airborne, shall not “clear out” or cause contact that is not incidental.
f. The defender may not “belly up” or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside her vertical plane.
g. The player with the ball shall be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in the judging of which, if either, player has violated the principle of verticality.

According to these guidelines, what did the defender in this clip do wrong after establishing LGP? Section B allows for a defender to "rise...within her vertical plane." Presumably, a player's vertical plane ends at the front of his/her feet. Section F says the defender "may not 'belly up' or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside her vertical plane."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

How is there no such thing as straightening up within one's vertical plane? If she'd just been standing there all the time with her knees bent and then locked her knees while not going further forward than the front of her feet...

I know I've mentioned this before but a defender doesn't have to become a statue when establishing LGP. Here's the Verticality rule (I'm using the NCAA-W rule book since that's what's covered in the clip but it's the same for NFHS & NCAA):



According to these guidelines, what did the defender in this clip do wrong after establishing LGP? Section B allows for a defender to "rise...within her vertical plane." Presumably, a player's vertical plane ends at the front of his/her feet. Section F says the defender "may not 'belly up' or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside her vertical plane."

Raising straight up is not the same as bringing the body forward over the feet after planting the feet. What you've described is for a player who is already there that is allowed to rise....not for a player arriving into the position who's body is just settling over their feet, still coming forward in the attempt to obtain the position. This player came forward into the position over her feet, she didn't rise up within the plane.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Raising straight up is not the same as bringing the body forward over the feet after planting the feet. What you've described is for a player who is already there that is allowed to rise....not for a player arriving into the position who's body is just settling over their feet, still coming forward in the attempt to obtain the position. This player came forward into the position over her feet, she didn't rise up within the plane.

The defender got two feet down with her torso facing the BH/dribbler meaning, by rule, she was "already there." Again, it's not as though a defender has to freeze on the spot at that point.

The rule allows for some movement as long as they're within their vertical plane and the defender in this play definitely wasn't leaning out over her feet. As I said before, she never even got the chance to straighten up fully before the BH/dribbler violated her vertical space. Even if the defender's torso had continued moving up/forward, by rule she'd be fine as long as it remained in her vertical plane.

[Pantherdreams]

Feet down - check
Facing player with the ball - Check
Inside her cylinder/vertical plane - Check

No idea what the defender did wrong.

Think the idea that her torso is moving forward is moot unless she's somehow got it moving beyond her toes and outside her cylinder.

Technically everytime someone breathes or tenses their abs there is going to be outward/forward movement with their torso. Saying that that is forward movement would be ridiculous. I'm putting any movement of the torso as they brace/straighten/settle in teh same category unless it puts them outside their allowed space. I don't feel that is the case here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Raising straight up is not the same as bringing the body forward over the feet after planting the feet. What you've described is for a player who is already there that is allowed to rise....not for a player arriving into the position who's body is just settling over their feet, still coming forward in the attempt to obtain the position. This player came forward into the position over her feet, she didn't rise up within the plane.

I would not want to try to justify a block to a supervisor based on this reasoning.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Feet down - check
Facing player with the ball - Check
Inside her cylinder/vertical plane - Check

No idea what the defender did wrong.

Think the idea that her torso is moving forward is moot unless she's somehow got it moving beyond her toes and outside her cylinder.

Technically everytime someone breathes or tenses their abs there is going to be outward/forward movement with their torso. Saying that that is forward movement would be ridiculous. I'm putting any movement of the torso as they brace/straighten/settle in the same category unless it puts them outside their allowed space. I don't feel that is the case here.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I would not want to try to justify a block to a supervisor based on this reasoning.

Here is the one part of the rule you're both leaving out....

The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs

This requirement is absolute. It is not qualified by any point of reference relative to the feet or a position. If the guard is moving forward, even just a little, it is not LGP. Period.

This player isn't "breathing" to cause the forward movement or straightening up, it is the primary act of trying to get a position that isn't yet complete.

For that matter, if the defender's torso is still moving forward, the defender didn't even get there first, which is also a basic requirement for guarding. That much is pretty basic.

You can argue that the player in any specific play might not have been moving forward but once you allow that she was (as JetMetFan did above), you can't have anything but a block.

[onetime1]

Looks like an easy PC call to me. How much better in LGP can the defender get? It appears the offensive player slams right through the defensive player. I would ship this the other way and never give it a second thought./

[Kansas Ref]

Hope I'm not too tardy for this great online "party" (i.e., good discussion on whether that was the proper call). I offer this alternative explanation--which hopefully it will not be at the chagrin of my fellow refs--but here it is:

I agree that this was a bang-bang type of play and required the Ref to instantaneously recognize/determine if all the relevant variables for making a block vs. charge determination were operative (i.e., veriticality, LGP, etc...previously cited by other commentors on this thread); however, another intervening factor that possibly played into deciding this call COULD have been the proximity of the calling Ref to the team's bench and the subtle psychologic influence this may have had. If you note that the block/charge action occured on that team's offensive end of the court and in front of that team's head coach/coaching staff--and look carefully at the reaction of their head coach who was pacing the sideline in a pensive demeanor after the call was made. It seemed like he may have been "surprised" that the call was not a PC. By this circumstantial evidence, it could be inferred that the Ref may have been--by mere human nature or lack of temerity--influenced to make the blocking call because that Ref was very close to the team A's bench personnel. That factor could have been the incremental 'tipping point' that provided the impetus to call a block instead of a PC (which was probably the proper call to make).

Now, before anyone online here rails on me for implying that Refs are not influenced by head coaches in high-intensity type of games (like the one on the vidoe) in making calls---let me say that I believe that all Refs are held in the utmost level of trust and fair judgement by peers, coaches, and players.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

however, another intervening factor that possibly played into deciding this call COULD have been the proximity of the calling Ref to the team's bench and the subtle psychologic influence this may have had. If you note that the block/charge action occured on that team's offensive end of the court and in front of that team's head coach/coaching staff--and look carefully at the reaction of their head coach who was pacing the sideline in a pensive demeanor after the call was made. It seemed like he may have been "surprised" that the call was not a PC. By this circumstantial evidence, it could be inferred that the Ref may have been--by mere human nature or lack of temerity--influenced to make the blocking call because that Ref was very close to the team A's bench personnel. That factor could have been the incremental 'tipping point' that provided the impetus to call a block instead of a PC (which was probably the proper call to make).

Now, before anyone online here rails on me for implying that Refs are not influenced by head coaches in high-intensity type of games (like the one on the vidoe) in making calls---let me say that I believe that all Refs are held in the utmost level of trust and fair judgement by peers, coaches, and players.

Well hate to disappoint you but I don't care what the reaction would be by anyone other than my partner. I want to be consistent as a crew and if my P had made a similar call on one end, I want to be consistent on the other end. Other than that, I don't care what a coach may think. I'd go so far as to say that if you are doing that, you should find a new hobby.

[Kansas Ref]

Oh you are not "disappointing me" at all. Quite the contrary, you are emboldening the code of unbiased reffing that needs to be practiced regardless of time, situation, or circumstance. In fact, I would have expected you to make such a comment--actually would've been surprised if you had not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Oh you are not "disappointing me" at all. Quite the contrary, you are emboldening the code of unbiased reffing that needs to be practiced regardless of time, situation, or circumstance. In fact, I would have expected you to make such a comment--actually would've been surprised if you had not.

Then why would you surmise that the ref made his called based on anything other than what he saw?

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

By this circumstantial evidence, it could be inferred that the Ref may have been--by mere human nature or lack of temerity--influenced to make the blocking call because that Ref was very close to the team A's bench personnel.

In my most humble of opinions: Garrrr-bage.