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

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sOZU-_WGRN0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have "nothing"...the defender was leaning backwards as the shooter/dunker elevated, gradually moved into the defender's space via momentum--however, defender was not displaced--the defender displaced himself by leaning backwards--only wind was between them--no real contact. Therefore, I have "nothing". This kind of play happens frequently--a no-call due to no contact; however, the official calling the play called a 'block' so I must be wrong

I have no idea why this thread was in the testing forum, so I moved it here.

I have nothing as well.

Knee to the face doesn't take much to displace a defender. The defender is allowed to move backward to maintain LGP. IMHO, there's no reason to require the defender to take the full brunt of contact on a play like this to call PC.

Agreed, but the problem is, when the defender is still moving back so quickly it gets hard to tell whether he displaced himself or not. Normally, if I can't tell, I'm going to no-call the play.

Definitely not a block, IMO.

I have a block.

I'm not 100% but I think the shooter was slipping by the defender and the defender drifted towards the endline (not directly away from the shooter) so he'd stay in the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne.

I'd like to see the endline view, however, for a much better view.

Must have been practicing his embedding skills.

Two things are going through my head as I watch this:
1. To and through? Kinda. Not enough for me to ship it though.
2. Does the defender stay up if there's no contact? I think so. The knee to the head knocked him down but that would be tough to see from the L. It looks like the C is squaring up to have a secondary whistle and send it, but stops when he sees block from the lead.

I'm in the "Definitely not a block" camp.

Not a block from the camera angle that we have... L has a completely different look, and from his angle it probably looked worse than it does from our vantage point.

I started a different thread with the following question, but it was before I saw this video, and since the video is pretty accurate scenario of what I had in mind, I deleted that post and going with it here.

So, everyone here knows (or should) that LGP is required before a shooter leaves the floor to draw a PCF. The usual visualization of this play is that the defender is stationary. Let's try something else:

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?

(BTW, I have a PCF in this video. I have LGP before the shot is released, moving backwards, and a displacing knee to the face.)

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.

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?

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.