Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 955490)

1. The shooter creates a dangerous situation so let's reward it by calling a foul on the defender who did nothing wrong? Wow.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams (Post 955569)

I don't think they are in this context.

If the player had established LGP but leaned forward outside their LGP to initate contact with a shooter we would argue he moved into the shooter.

If they player in LGP wishes to lean backward to protect themselves or to move away from the contact they should get the same application of "move".

It doesn't make sense to say" You can't move into the shooter, so no leaning forward because you are moving into them but also say, you can move backwards but no leaning away from them because leaning is not moving.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 955671)

I asked for opinions based on the dangerous aspect of the play. I was not advocating a block or charge call. BTW... the shooter was just shooting, how did he "create" the situation? Should shooting while moving forward be deemed illegal?



Sounds to me the defender leaning forward is not illegal for moving closer to the shooter, but is illegal for moving out of his verticality... the same no matter which direction he leaned. If I call a defender for a "hacking" foul for having his hands/arms up and out, instead of straight up, it's not because he moved towards the shooter, it's because his arms were not vertical.

The point I was making, and what has been skipped here, is that it's a dangerous play and something should be done to discourage it. The shooter did not create the dangerous part of the play, the defender did... hence the blocking call.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 955674)

So, according to the above logic, if the dribbler leans back, the defender can knock him to the floor and not be charged with a foul.

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 955672)

The shooter is going someplace he shouldn't -- he's going into a spot occupied by a defender. So we're going to bail him out with a foul.

Look, I'll call whatever any supervisor tells me to call -- I'm not precious over that kind of thing. But this is a ridiculous line of thinking.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 955652)

You don't why the official called the foul, unless you have talked to him about the call. Additionally, unless you have spoken to this official, you have no idea what his feelings were about the call after he reviewed the video. And to say that contact was a "smack" is being less than honest, or a prime example of hyperbole.

But it is most definitely arrogant of you to say I choose not to see it.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 955675)

I don't know how you're applying what I said to a dribbler, as verticality doesn't apply to him, but OK.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 955679)

4-45-7: The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

Originally Posted by RefCT (Post 955465)

We are advised to call it a block because if he starts leaning back before contact, he lost verticality and is no longer has LGP. No different than if he had his arms extended and made contact. (I didn't watch the video - I am referring to a case where they start to fall backwards without contact - not moving backwards with their feet)

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 955481)

No Adam, It's not wrong. It was approved in June by the NCAA oversight panel. If you are attempting to draw a charge on a pass or shot you must be in position before contact occurs and you cannot move in ANY DIRECTION before contact occurs.(except vertically).

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 955405)

Not according to the rules. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the premise that falling before contact constitutes a block is backed up nowhere in the rules book.

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 955688)

I only do HS, and if the defender starts falling before any contact it is almost always a block or I will no call it. If they don't stay up and take the contact I'm not giving them a PC

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 955689)

In that case, you're almost always wrong.

In such a case, did the defender illegally block the path of the opponent? No. Did the lean make the opponent hit them any harder? No. Did the lean change anything about what contact occurred? No. Do the rules explicitly say the defender may turn or duck? Yes.

There is really no rational justification anywhere that can lead to calling such plays a block.

No call, I can live with, but a block is just wrong.

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 955692)

Don't remember the last time a coach disagreed with that line of thought.

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 955692)

Don't remember the last time a coach disagreed with that line of thought.

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 955692)

Don't remember the last time a coach disagreed with that line of thought.