Marist vs Iona Fastbreak Dunk Block/Charge??? (Video)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Let's say A-1 drives, closely guarded by B-2. In a whole quick motion, A-1 stops his dribble, B-2 obtains LGP, A-1 goes airborne and forward, and B-2 backs up and draws contact from A-1 after the ball is released.

Assuming the contact is advantageous, we would still have a charge, yes? Even though, by rule, LGP is maintained by moving backwards, is there any instance in this scenario where it could be argued that LGP is somehow lost?

In a recent thread, some said they would call a block on the defender for leaning back (why??) so some of those guys might apply that same philosophy to this. Much more common, I think, is when the defender had LGP but still moves slightly to "center up" the contact after the shooter is airborne, the resulting contact is improperly called a block.

[Pantherdreams]

I don't see a block at all.

I don't like the no call but based on interps in previous posts about how to call these sorts of plays from our NCAA official fellows, I understand why it is no called.

I would be perfectly fine with a PC here.

Not to hijack the thread but I guess the question that I have . .. without getting into a lot of growth of sport, safety, concussion issues that most here don't see as related to calling plays:

If a player can have LGP. And can maintain legal guarding position by turning, moving backwards, etc to protect themselves. BUT we are interpreting (or being asked to interpret) that choice to protect yourself from contact, by minimizing its impact, as grounds to turn a pc into a no-call or block . . Then what is the purpose of including the clarification about maintaining LGP when protecting yourself there for?

[Camron Rust]

I think this is one of those plays where the camera angle might be fooling a lot of us (maybe me). It appears to be mostly likely a PC from this view but I see just enough to support the possibility that the L, from his angle, had something that made it a block. I'm going to trust him on this one and go with the block based on the his call and the few hints that could support that call. Without his view, however, I'm couldn't make any confident argument that either call is wrong. It is just the wrong angle to be conclusive either way, IMO.

Block and-1 for getting in the way of a highlight dunk.

[Kelvin green]

I just can't see how this is a block. The question I ask is what rule did the defense violate? what did he do wrong?

From the camera angle, I think this should be PC...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I just can't see how this is a block. The question I ask is what rule did the defense violate? what did he do wrong?

From the camera angle, I think this should be PC...

As I said above, I think it is possible that the defender moved into the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne.....where the shooter had jumped in a path that was slipping beside and behind the defender had the defender not continued to move.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As I said above, I think it is possible that the defender moved into the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne.....where the shooter had jumped in a path that was slipping beside and behind the defender had the defender not continued to move.

If that's the case, then I agree with a blocking foul. Otherwise, this is a PC foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Block and-1 for getting in the way of a highlight dunk.

Sarcasm?

Originally Posted by Rich

Sarcasm?

Maybe a little.