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

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.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by 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.

wow. I hope this philosophy works well for you. good luck.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

A no call should not be one of the choices in this play. This is a foul one way or the other and should be called.

[JugglingReferee]

I'm going with Nevada's call; release was before contact.

[mutantducky]

ok, so what about incidental contact. or a play in the textbooks, when both players have an equal right the the space and the defender jumps up and the offensive player crashes into him. That could be a no-call.
I can see the same situation here, so what if the defender doesn't jump?
To me I see both players in a good position. I don't see why there needs to be a call here.

[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.