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

Announcer: "He wasn't completely set."

The second angle was cut off before I could get it...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Doi4Hd3iF1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Block, defender is moving forward at contact.

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.

Looks like a charge to me.

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 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.

I think you might be right. :o

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

This is what I saw as well.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I usually just put videos up and let the rest of the forum decide on the play, but I got to comment here...

A no call is definitely not one of the options on this play. Block or charge, I really don't care. This is a tough play to decide on one of those, so I'm not going to set up in one camp or the other. However, you say that both players have "equal right" to the space. Then you say that the defender jumps up and the offensive player CRASHES into him. You have just told us that you SHOULD have a charge on this play by what you described. This cannot be a no call.

There are some who believe that the defender moves forward after the offensive player leaves the floor, making this a block. That's fine too. However, bodies have gone to the floor on this play, and we HAVE to have a whistle here.

Period.

Didn't the offense gain an advantage? that's why there needs to be a call.

You could have a no call if the defense was legal, the offense bumped into him, the defense wasn't displaced, the offense did nothing but make the shot harder for himself....

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.