Block/PC (video)
 

I focused as much on the call in this case as I did on who blew their whistle and the mechanics. Thoughts on whether this should have been a double whistle?


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

But it was a double whistle?

I think he is suggesting that the lead should have not had a double on this since the fouling defender was coming from the C's primary....and I'd agree.

Ah, I see. Correct, should be single whistle here from C.

I have no problem with the double whistle. Something needs to be called here and the Lead allowed the Center to take the call. I would have little problem with this situation.

Peace

To me, since the defender involved in the play is a secondary defender, it's okay that the Lead has a whistle. If that defender had come from underneath - in the key - it would be more easily understood, especially because the Lead is across the key.
Certainly, it's best that the Center take the call.

On another note, this is a really close block/charge call. Does anyone have it as a charge?

Yes, I did. I had it as a PC while watching at full speed.

Tough Call ...
 

It's close, about as close as it gets. I see the defender's feet possibly getting there first but her body may still be inertially moving forward as contact is made. I like the block call, but I could live with a player control foul, especially in real time.

Something had to be called here. It's a train wreak. You can't avoid sounding the whistle because your not sure what to call (a common rookie mistake). Sometimes a strong wrong call is better than a no call. In calls like this you'll be right, by educated guessing, about fifty percent of the time. If you don't sound your whistle, in situations like this, you'll be wrong one-hundred percent of the time.

I can't comment on the three man mechanics, remember, Connecticut is The Land That Time Forgot.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3775/1...8029f778_m.jpg

I did as well. And I have a PC foul at slow speed. It looks like the defender even stops the moment before contact.

Peace

Travel. :D

No...defender never stopped moving forward. Remember, it is about the movement of the body, not the feet. The feet are only part of LGP.

With where that defender came from, I don't agree. The L had 2 other defenders who could have easily become part of the play to look at on his side of (or in) the lane.
Agree....if the defender that rotated to help was form the L's area, L should be first on it.

I had a PC as well.

I see no reason for a whistle from the lead. And I have a player control foul.

Agree. A classic case of the lead "reaching across" on a call that's in the center's lap. Center had an immediate whistle so it's not like it's a bail out/save call. All that being said, it's not like the double whistle looked bad. Only people that would question the actions of the L and C are other officials.

...and I had PC.

I agree, provided the Lead doesn't signal immediately as well. I don't know why the Lead put his arm down so fast.....leaving it up a second or two strengthens the double whistle.

Looking at this again, the Lead is not even looking at the crash, his eyes are on the 2 post players. He can only see the crash from his peripheral. This makes it even more perplexing to me as to why he had a whistle.

Wise words.

Looking at the source it's not a surprise.

Oh, and I have a PC, but wouldn't take issue with it being called a block.

What got me thinking on this one is the L didn't just signal immediately, he signaled first. Now, it may look that way to me because the L went up with a fist while the C went up with a preliminary (bad idea...) but it appears as though he went first.

Those who have been to NCAA-W camps already know the hierarchy we're being reminded of this summer: L has first crack on drives into his/her primary from the T and drives down the middle of the lane. This one was in the C's primary and as Camron pointed out the defender came from the C's primary.

I think the L is locked in on the post play and only puts in air on it because he realizes there was a crash and someone needs it.

I'm ok with the get from the C in this case though I don't think its the right call.

I've got PC all the way. Ball carrier has no expectation of time and space in real time and slow mo defender gets to LGP.

I'm really surprised at the number who are indicating they have a PC here when the defender never stops moving forward. She almost gets there, but not quite....and I even tend to call charges more than many.

Too much of a nit to pick for me on this play. But I also don't have a problem with her call on this play. One of those 50/50 plays.

I think the defender does actually stop. And if they don't, in that close of a play I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the defender. We penalize defenders too often when they are not in illegal positions.

Peace

I've got a charge in slow motion and in real time.

Not sure what you have got that I don't. Her feet are down. Her body and contact to it happen inside the space she is legally occupying.

She can stand there and do the hula so long as she's in LGP and the contact doesn't occur outside of the vertical space she's entitled to.

There is no requirement that her chest/torso be stationary. Just inside the space she's legally entitled to and that's determined by her feet? Am I missing something?

Hate when I have to agree with you....on both accounts !!!!

As to th double whistle, somebody said earlier that they were ok with it becasuse it was a secondary defender.......Hogwash !!! Look where the secondary defender comes from. If you agree that the L whistle is OK, then he must be refereeing that girl the entire play. She comes from the C"s primary. That girl didn't come from his area anyway there are players in his area....TRUST YOUR PARTNER !!!!

I'm with Camron on this one. I had a block in real time. It is really close in slow mo but I'm sticking with my original call. As someone stated earlier it is a 50/50 play. So my question is how has the crew called all 50/50 block/charge plays all game (if there were any)?

I think the biggest problem with this play is that the calling official signals that it is a non shooting foul (1&1). This is clearly a shooting foul and the other 2 partners should bring this information to the calling official.

Also, I don't think the Lead is refereeing the post players (not much there to referee). He is position adjusting to see the ball at the top of the key.

It was I that noted that I'd be okay with the whistle by the Lead. And I added that it's best that the C take the call.
The Lead had just crossed the key, the contact/foul was in the key, and he immediately dropped his arm when he realized that C had the call.
Had he waited just a fraction longer, such that, if the C had a whistle, as she did, he would not have needed to blow his. And then, if she didn't, his whistle would be regarded as a good get, for the sake of the crew.
Teaching, and learning, good cadence, especially on secondary areas/whistles is not a basic skill, for many officials. I have a feeling that a supervisor for this crew most likely would mention this play in that context. As you said, "trust your partner(s)."

While we can certainly disagree on this specific case (I had a block in real time and am even more convinced by the slow-mo), I do think you are also missing something.

The feet being down is not all that is required. The body is only legal if and when it is over the feet and not moving toward the opponent at the time of contact. The requirements on the feet are only momentary and only one of the requirements for LGP. The requirements on the body are constant. The defender can't be moving toward the opponent when contact occurs. And that is referring to the part of the defender that contacts the opponent....the torso.

She must get the body over the feet before she has that position and must stop all forward movement. If she is still moving forward with the torso, she is not yet in that space. Otherwise, a player could extend their feet out to the side/front/etc. to claim the space and bring their body in later.

Clearly ???
 

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

The only contact from movement/acton the the defender is responsible for is movement or action that takes place outside of their legally guarding position and associated rights.

They can move their arm up/in front of them and get hit on the arm so long as the arm is within their cylinder. They can lean back to the side do the hula if they want so long as the contact takes place in side their cylinder and they've established legal guarding postion.

Different situation but if a player had legal guarding postion and as impact was occuring brough their arms across their chest and they got hit you wouldn't call illegal use of the hands or blocking because their arms came forward (unless they wen't beyond their cylinder). So unless their chest is coming out past their toes wouldn't you see that as the same thing?

Is this a High School or College game? Why does 'C' raise both hands on the whistle. The dribbler gathered the ball, stepped and then the foul.. Player is in the Act of Shooting. Why are we penalizing the shooter and saying 'no shot'? I know the Act of Shooting rule is slightly different from HS to College.

It's an NCAA-W game and the rule is the same for NCAA-W and NFHS. She raised both hands because she was making a preliminary signal for a block...obviously not thinking there would be another whistle since the play was in her primary but such is what happens when your partners - in the case the L - ball-watch.

So...here's the play slowed down even more. I don't agree with your premise because there's nothing in terms of establishing LGP that requires a player's upper body to stop moving.

However, even if I did agree with you when does the defender violate the rule of verticality? Verticality exists when you have LGP, which the defender established by having both feet on the court with her torso facing her opponent. The rules of verticality allow a player movement within their vertical plane - or their "cylinder" as Panther put it - provided they don't create contact outside that plane/cylinder. As I mentioned before, the offensive player enters the defender's plane/sphere and creates contact. Even if I/we allow for your interpretation and the defender isn't legal, the offensive player doesn't give her a chance to commit a foul. Think of it similar to a screen: I can set a screen that will be illegal but if my opponent shoves me over the foul is on them.


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7b8M7ryLSoA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That is simply not correct.

By rule, the ONLY movement allowed is vertical, lateral to or away from the opponent. Movement towards the opponent at the time of contact is always negates LGP...they don't have a cylinder to move in if they are moving forward. Plus, leaning to the side is, by definition, not in the cylinder...it is outside of the cylinder. The cylinder is vertical, not to their side. It doesn't extend outside of their torso to include the space nearby.


That could be legal, a push, illegal hands or something else...would have to see that. Fundamentally, the torso moving forward negates LGP. It has nothing to do with the toes or the feet.

Here you go (from rule 4-23 GUARDING, older rule number perhaps)...

It only allows the player to jump UP, not move forward.

The rules of verticality allow VERTICAL movement, not lateral movement. That is why it is called verticality. Guarding rules clearly (as I mention above) disallow forward movement.

These two players are coming together. In the context of block/charge, the requirements are 100% on the defender to be legal. If the defender is moving forward, they are not legal and it doens't matter what the offensive player is doing, it is a block.

If a player shoves another, then it isn't a block/charge play. That is a different discussion.

Super Slo-Mo convinces even more that it's a PC foul, and that the Lead not only should not have had a whistle, he didn't even give the C first crack.

Section F of Verticality: The defender "may not 'belly up' or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside her vertical plane."

Section B of Verticality: The defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within her vertical plane. (BTW, one of the definitions of "rise" is "to assume an upright position")

Verticality doesn't limit a player to just vertical movement. A player is limited to movement within their vertical plane. There's a difference. Obviously if a player steps forward or leans into an opponent outside their vertical plane that's a foul. The defender in this case didn't move her feet forward and didn't lean into her opponent/create contact. Any movement was within her vertical sphere of influence after she established LGP.

Pot Shots ...
 

In my high school game, I will probably decide that she is in the act of shooting, but I'll be prepared to take some polite grief from the opposing coach. This is almost one of those almost in the act of shooting situations, and when confronted with such situations, I tend to err on the side of shooting.

I Didn't Know That There Was Going To Be Math On The Forum Today ...
 

Two of these are three dimensional objects, while one is a two dimensional object. Using all three in the same argument can lead to a lot of mathematically challenging questions. Let's try to stick to the same "dimension".

Also, where does it say that the cylinder is defined by the feet? I would think that the torso looks more like a cylinder than two feet look like a cylinder. Again we have a problem with dimensions. The base of a cylinder is a plane and it takes three points to define a plane. Unless a player has a third foot, or a tail, I would think that the base of that cylinder is best described by the dimensions (radius) of the torso.

Block.
Shouldn't be a double whistle.
Center should be able to (and apparently does, in this case) be fully aware of, anticipate, and officiate both the screening play and the secondary defender coming over.
My guess is Lead's ball-watching and too invested in the play, leading to that quick whistle out of his primary.

Thanks for posting. Nice discussion play.

Also, haven't been on in a while, come back, skip to last page of this thread, see this: = awesome.

Because?

Yeah, went back and forth, but I just don't think I'd be able to see that PC to too many people that matter, so typed what my initial reaction was before watching slow motion a few times. "She's moving toward the offensive player at the time of contact. By rule, that's a blocking foul." I know the blue part is being debated here, but that's what I'd say.

I'll say it again: If we're going to hold defenders to a standard that they're not permitted to bring themselves upright after obtaining LGP in a crash situation like this we're not following the rules (of verticality, specifically).

For this play I'm still trying to figure out what illegal movement is taking place. The defender gets her feet down with her torso facing the BH/dribbler, takes the contact in the torso after her vertical space is violated and the foul is supposed to be on her?

1. She wasn't set
2. She hopped into position
3. She was moving laterally
4. She was moving

I think that covers it all ;)

It isn't a matter of bringing themselves upright from a crouched position as in the the case many are describing (which I'm OK with and actually call the way you're advocating).

In this play, she was still arriving into position. At no time did her forward movement stop before contact. For a defender to even have LGP and the right to verticality, they have to stop moving forward. I've quoted the rule and it is a pretty simple rule....move forward, you lose LGP. This just isn't a verticality situation.

Since she was still moving forward into the space, it wasn't yet her space. If she had stopped....then straightened up, it would have been a charge, but she never stopped.

EDIT: I just watched your super slo-mo and it confirms that she never stopped moving forward. She was slowing down, but her position in each and every frame was forward of the previous frame....thus, no LGP. In real time, some might call it a PC and it might be acceptable to have that called a PC given how close it was, but the video doesn't lie. It only says it was close to being a PC, but not quite. Some might call that splitting hairs, but no matter where you draw the line, there is a decision to be made. You can't avoid it with two players moving towards each other.

Are you saying she is moving toward the offensive player? I only see her moving laterally, which she is allowed to do. I see her feet get to the spot and then she straitens up and contact occurs.

...and then both her feet hit the floor prior to contact from the BH/dribbler, meaning for that moment she has LGP and then verticality takes over. She was not out of her vertical plane when contact took place. If you pause the slo-mo at the moment of contact the defender's feet/knees are slightly ahead of her torso, not even or behind. How would she be creating contact?


Sure, make trouble why don't you? ;)

I've got a PC at full speed, slo-mo, paused, frame by frame, or any other speed.

Yes. Her position (in the super slo-mo) starts 2-3 feet closer the the basket than she ends up. She started from a position 2-3 feet below the level of letters in the lane and 2-3 feet outside of the lane and ended up on the upper portion the letters in the lane. The line on which she moves is almost directly at the point where she meets the opponent (towards the opponent).

Below is a screen grab of the key moments...
1. At the start of her move to get into the path
2. Just before contact
3. At contact

I've added lines to represent the defender's position at each moment. The red set is the defender's position relative to the endline, which may or may not be sufficient to see if the defender was moving towards the dribbler since the defender is not moving directly away from the endline. It does show the defender moving towards midcourt as well as toward the interior of the lane.

The green set is the defender's position relative to the dribbler set at the same point on the defender's chest. The yellow line is the line directly between the defender and the dribbler. The camera angle is such that it would be valid to use the green lines as the plane between the two players. Using fixed markings (such as the trash can) on the court/wall relative to the defender's position you can see that the defender's position continued forward until contact.

http://cbrust.smugmug.com/photos/i-v...vW6Bkdx-XL.gif

Not correct. Having feet down only gets LGP if the body is over those feet and the body is not moving forward into the opponent....see the rule I've quoted several times. Sticking a foot out in front of you doesn't give you that spot until your body reaches that spot too.

Again, she was not going UP, she was going forward. Verticality doesn't matter relative to forward motion. That is just the wrong application of verticality.

I could accept that if, in real time, you felt she maybe got there in time and was no longer moving forward, but you're using the wrong rule to justify it.

Easy Peasey Lemon Squeezy ...
 

Easy. The trash can was there first, has legal guarding position, and doesn't move in any direction. Legal play on the trash can. Player control foul on dribbler.

Looking at your photos. She's legal in frame 2 before she gets hit, she's legal in frame three.

Where she choses to put her chest/stomach inside her cylinder isn't illegal whether she sticks her butt back or lifts her chest and legs up (which will move her hips and ribs outward/foward everytime). It only becomes illegal when she extends beyond her cylinder or plane.

You are the one combining the LGP and verticality rules. Most posters here are trying to keep them seperate.

If she were standing still prior to the play and the difference in her body between frame 2 and 3 that you posted was just her choice of movement to challenge shooter, protect herself whatever . . .would you have a foul. Just standing there and her posture from frame 2-3 was only change?

The offensive player has no expectation of time and space. I think you are punishing the defender for what she was doing prior to establishing LGP. ie. Facing and in path. Rather then officiating what she does once she has it.

I know your argument may be that she doesn't have it. But by the requierments she does have LGP. I think you are the only person counting torso movement inside her cylinder (or from behind to into depending on your take) as forward movement. Occupying space you are entitled to should not be a foul/

Tough play either way, and from the discussion and frame by frame breakdown there is still differing thoughts. This could easily be a play that, if it happens two nights in a row, you might call it differently for each, depending on a number of factors.

However this 'close' play ends up getting called, the best thing as a crew is to just make sure anything similar at the other end of the court goes the same direction for consistency.....

Agree though that L should not have had a primary whistle, rather been there for a 'crew call', if needed.

She would be legal if she didn't continue to move forward. The LGP rules quite clearly state that moving forward negates LGP if contact occurs during the forward movement. If the movement is upward (verticality) it would be legal, but there isn't even a hint of such movement. Even if there were, that doesn't excuse the forward movement.

Verticality is about vertical movement....none of which happens in this play. Also, the cylinder (no such thing, really, verticality is defined by a plane) isn't defined by where the player puts their feet but where the front of torso is located. Your entire argument hinges on a defender having the right to space in front of them which they are not occupying. No defender has such rights. She is moving her entire torso into new space all the way to the point of contact.

Yes. First, no one can stand with the posture in #2 without falling on their butt. Even if she could, it would still be a foul. She is moving forward and sticking her chest/belly out in front of the position she legally obtained. Verticality and the cylinder doesn't really apply here but even it if did, she's moving it forward, not moving up within it.

Verticality, as in firming up, isn't what is happening here. She isn't straightening the body to be aligned vertically which usually occurs when a player raises up with their shoulders arms bring the belly/hips forward to be in line with the shoulders. She is moving all parts forward....not the same thing as bringing the midsection inline with the upper body.

Again, by still moving forward, she gives up any LGP she may have obtained.

I quote the guarding rule again:

She IS moving forward, not upward....LGP lost.

The movement is NOT inside her cylinder. Her cylinder is where she is, not in front of it...and only UPWARD movement is allowed by verticality. The space she is entitled to is not the space in front of her.


Here is another rule quote covering verticality (found in the section on the use of hands/arms):

Note that the reference for verticality in this rule is the shoulders, not the feet.

So here's the upshot on this play from one of my assignors/supervisors (I sent them the original clip, not the super slo-mo): it's a player-control foul.

Why? The defender established LGP and and did not lose it prior to the illegal contact by the BH/dribbler.

How? The defender had two feet on the floor and her torso was facing her opponent. There's nothing in the LGP rule requiring the rest of her body to come to a halt for LGP to be established.

What about the "movement" by the defender? "Movement" is generally thought to involve the feet and the defender didn't create/cause the contact. My assignor/supervisor agreed with my statement that verticality allows the defender to rise/straighten herself since that's written into the rule.

Believe me, this assignor/supervisor would've told me if I had it wrong...in a heartbeat.

Illegal Movement ???
 

I can live with the player control foul, it's a tough bang bang play, but ...

Movement only involves the feet? That's a tough one to swallow.

Does this mean that hip checks, and elbows to the ribs, aren't considered movement if the feet aren't moving?

Was it legal for Moe to poke Curly's eyes because Moe's feet weren't moving?

Again, it is not about establishing LGP...she had that. But there are ways to lose it.. I quote the rule:
By this rule, she lost it after having gained it.

I think your assignor is wrong about movement. Why? Players don't play defense by sticking their feet in front of their opponents. That, alone, even if both are on the floor is not sufficient. Defensive position is about the body. The feet are merely a marker used to indicate when in time LGP is obtained but the body is what is doing the guarding and what is regulated by the guarding rule.
Both players created contact since both were moving towards each other. Plus, creating contact isn't illegal and is a bad way to define who gets the foul.

That is true. But that isn't what this player did. There was absolutely no vertical element to this play.

Got some input from my current and past assignors. They both had a PC.

In speaking to one of them, he said he had to watch it multiple times, even in slow-mo, to come to a conclusion of PC but would't disagree with someone who had a block since it was so close.

Verticality was not mentioned as the reason.

I Second The Motion ...
 

What did they say about forward motion?

That is where the one I spoke with mentioned he wouldn't disagree with someone who called it a block but he felt the defender did enough for him to have a PC.

There's a point where the margins get too small to get this call right. I agree with Camron's analysis, and still have a block which I've had from the beginning.

No putting words in my mouth :p. The wording was "generally" not "only." Obviously there are other forms of movement.

Realize I'm late to the game on this one but 2 points. First, I literally laughed out loud on this...


Second, PC. Without the frame by frame analysis which I'm not smart enough to do in a game, to me the defender got to the spot first and the contact was center mass. That's what I would process in my own mind in a game to get to my PC conclusion. (Plus PC is my favorite call of all and I look good calling it! After all, that's what is important, right? :D)

Just getting caught up on this thread...reading through the debate...great analysis on a true 50/50 play...my take is this: If we are still debating after looking at super slow mo and using stacks of definitions, geometry, and rules citations to decide the right call, I can easily live with the call made by the official on the spot in real time. I don't think either side of this debate is absolutely correct.

But this made me spit out my coffee:

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk. Happy 4th Billy.

The Six Stooges ???
 

In the spirit of Independence Day, and with the God given right that all red blooded American males above a certain age have to revere the Three Stooges, who can name all six Three Stooges? Yeah, that's right, six (and I'm not talking about the recent 2012 movie). No fair using the internet.

When a call is this close, the official's first reaction is going to be the "right" call. Once in a great while, the call is truly 50/50.

Personally, I would ship a 50/50 call like this every time (I hope). It's hard to play defense. If it's this close, reward the defender.

I give the defense the benefit of the doubt almost all of the time when I can. You are working that hard to get in someone's way, you are getting the call. And I believe that most of the time we call these incorrectly anyway on the defense when they do nothing illegal. But as you stated, it is usually not that close.

Peace

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./

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.

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.

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?

In my most humble of opinions: Garrrr-bage.

* In my most humble of opinions: Naive

IMHO, you think way too much. See a play, make a call. Once the call is made, I'm getting away from that coach anyway.

Next thing you'll say is that maybe they made the call against the visiting team just cause the crowd wouldn't boo as loudly. (Yes, I know it was against the home team. But my theory is just as stupid as yours.)

So you are saying that you think the ref's call was influenced by the coach? How do you merge that with your words about "utmost" respect and integrity?

They don't mesh.

Lead shouldn't have a whistle on this at all - the defender clearly comes from center's primary.

That being said - I have an offensive foul - you move that clip in slow motion, you can see the defender has 2 feet, facing the defender before she starts her try.