Vilanova Syracuse block/charge 1:50 left in overtime (Video)

[MD Longhorn]

arem seems to be having a bad day today. No part of that defender is moving forward when and after he's established LGP. None. Even in slow motion.

[just another ref]

I didn't like the call live when I saw it. And the tv replay showed the angle from behind the defender which made it look even worse, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

arem seems to be having a bad day today. No part of that defender is moving forward when and after he's established LGP. None. Even in slow motion.

I think you might be right.

Watch the defender's feet -- I think he keeps moving forward while the offensive player is airbourne.

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think you might be right.

Watch the defender's feet -- I think he keeps moving forward while the offensive player is airbourne.

This is what I saw as well.

[MD Longhorn]

Hmmm... wish the video went 3 seconds longer. I confess I was looking mostly at body. Not positive the feet are moving forward, but I do see them moving like a rookie QB about to get sacked.

[Camron Rust]

Looks to me like the defender is shuffling his feet forward all the way to contact. Block it is.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Charge, but not PC as the ball is released on the try prior to the crash. This is the NCAA Men's rule.

Count the basket and then go to the other end and shoot the bonus FTs, if necessary.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

arem seems to be having a bad day today. No part of that defender is moving forward when and after he's established LGP. None. Even in slow motion.

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think you might be right.

Watch the defender's feet -- I think he keeps moving forward while the offensive player is airbourne.

The movement of the defender's feet are of no consequence in this play. Using FIBA's Cylinder of Verticality, the defender establishes his LGP and his CofV stays over the spot of where he initially established his LGP. His feet are moving within his CofV but his body (including his feet) as a whole did not move toward the offensive player. Charge as described by NevadaRef.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The movement of the defender's feet are of no consequence in this play. Using FIBA's Cylinder of Verticality, the defender establishes his LGP and his CofV stays over the spot of where he initially established his LGP. His feet are moving within his CofV but his body (including his feet) as a whole did not move toward the offensive player. Charge as described by NevadaRef.

I'm sorry Mark I didn't know you worked under FIBA rules. Additionally I can't see how you can say this for sure from the only angle we have. It may very well be a charge from a different angle but from this angle and based on the feet creeping forward I feel safe assuming the body usually follows what the feet do.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I'm sorry Mark I didn't know you worked under FIBA rules. Additionally I can't see how you can say this for sure from the only angle we have. It may very well be a charge from a different angle but from this angle and based on the feet creeping forward I feel safe assuming the body usually follows what the feet do.

I watched his torso the first time, and it sure looks like he's falling backwards even as his feet creep forward.

[crosscountry55]

I don't have an opinion. Looking at the arguments on both sides, I think we clearly have a true 50/50 call here. So the C may have either taken an educated guess, or he may have had things like matching calls and/or crew consistency on his mind. This would be based on other aspects of the game that we don't know about from a 10-second clip.

I don't think this official is going to lose any points whatsoever with his assigner. Good call in real time and he sold it well.

[mutantducky]

are you ok with this being a No Call? I just can't tell and I think I wouldn't have called anything for this play. I just think both the defender and the offensive player had equal right to the area, and I would just have let the contact happen without a foul being called.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Adam

I watched his torso the first time, and it sure looks like he's falling backwards even as his feet creep forward.

I agree. Which made it look very much to me like the defender was "bellying up" as in 4-45-6. I'll go with a block.

[Adam]

I wonder if this is one of those cases where the official calls a block because he didn't think the defender stood there and took it.

This should be a charge.