UNC/Duke (Video)

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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?

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

But that doesn't make what the defender does right, either.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Choose whatever verb you want hit, smack, hacked, whatever. I don't pass on any contact coming down across a shooters arm while the shooter is trying to bring the ball up to shoot. Calling that incidental is just silly however you want to dance with the words.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Verticality and LGP, the two principles being discussed here, do not directly apply to shooters or dribblers. Those two things actually help us decide how 4-45-7 is applied.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RefCT

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

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).

Y'all do realize that if an offensive player runs over the defender it is possible for the foul to be on that offensive player even if the defender never had LGP at all, don't you?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Turning to protect yourself is not the same as falling backwards because you really don't want to take the contact. I get both sides of this. I've called blocks or no called this and when asked by coaches, I've just told them they need to stay up and take the contact. Don't remember the last time a coach disagreed with that line of thought.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

If this is your best reason for doing something..........

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

Just because they hear it enough to think it is right doesn't mean it is. Many of them also think a defender has to be set to take a charge....and, unfortunately, so do at least some number of officials.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

Why is this relevant? Is our goal to get the coach to agree with every call we make?