UNC/Duke (Video)

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Defender started falling before contact, often called a block at this level. Plus I think he was slightly late.

I never saw the defender move forward. Sure looked to me like he continued to move backward, but I'll give Tim Nestor the benefit of the doubt until I see it again. And, falling before contact does not constitute a block.

Originally Posted by SC Official

And, falling before contact does not constitute a block.

It does according to the college guys I've talked to. They've told me the defender has to take it.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by AremRed

It does according to the college guys I've talked to. They've told me the defender has to take it.

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 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'm well aware of the rule, and I am sure the D1 official who made the call is as well. I'm talking about the standards and expectations for how plays are officiated at that level, but you can go ahead and call that play a charge in your games.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I'm well aware of the rule, and I am sure the D1 official who made the call is as well. I'm talking about the standards and expectations for how plays are officiated at that level, but you can go ahead and call that play a charge in your games.

If you would take a second to actually read my posts instead of getting defensive, I never said it was a charge and gave Nestor the benefit of the doubt. I asked what the defender did wrong. In my judgment, without any replay, he did nothing wrong by the rules. Falling early does not make it a block. Period. If D1 officials are told your philosophy, fine. I'm merely pointing out what the rules say.

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm merely pointing out what the rules say.

Which is fine, but I never claimed it was rules knowledge yet you were quick to point out it wasn't in the rules. Don't know why you need to constantly point this out when I'm clearly sharing what I've heard. Do I need to provide a disclaimer every time I post??

[just another ref]

I looked for travels that I would have called in real time and found three. One was already mentioned with Okafor. The others were 19:25 of the first half and 3:12 in overtime. I believe both were Winslow for Duke. If you're going to the basket, you really get some leeway.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Which is fine, but I never claimed it was rules knowledge yet you were quick to point out it wasn't in the rules.

I don't think anybody doubts your word about what you hear. But do you hear these guys expand on this any more than that?

"I know this is not absolutely correct by rule, but this is what we're expected to call/not call in that situation."

Or is this one of those things that everybody involved knows it's there, but nobody talks about it?

And do we hear any more specifics than that? (you don't have to name names here.) Since ___________ got to be supervisor of (whatever) we've been told to back off on calling travels. (or whatever)

[APG]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

About 9:25 first half. Close block/charge play called player control against UNC.

Then Bilas gave his whole "you can't move" spiel.

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Worth another look is the GT/BI call at 13:26 second half.

Originally Posted by SC Official

I would like to see the block called against UNC at either 4:39 or 4:29 in the second half. I had a hard time finding what the defender did wrong in real time.

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Foul call with 44 seconds left.

Both of these plays happen one after each other...one at 47 and one at 41...didn't know which one. You get both.

Originally Posted by Refneck

My bad. 1:44 remaining in OT.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Which is fine, but I never claimed it was rules knowledge yet you were quick to point out it wasn't in the rules. Don't know why you need to constantly point this out when I'm clearly sharing what I've heard. Do I need to provide a disclaimer every time I post??

I'm thinking it's possible.

[BryanV21]

Not saying this is right, but I was thinking...

1. When the defender falls back early it kind of acts like an undercut of the shooter, which can be dangerous.

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

Or a no-call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Not saying this is right, but I was thinking...

1. When the defender falls back early it kind of acts like an undercut of the shooter, which can be dangerous.

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

1. Still his spot and he has a legal right to move backwards.
2. I agree sometimes it minimizes contact to the point where we don't have a foul. But in that case,

we don't have a foul.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Not saying this is right, but I was thinking...

1. When the defender falls back early it kind of acts like an undercut of the shooter, which can be dangerous.

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

I hear this reasoning often, but as its not supported by the rules I just don't buy it. THe rules say that a player with lgp can move backwards. We are also expressly told they are alloud to protect themselves, even if this inlcludes movements that might normally be illegal (twisting or turning).

Requiring players to stand there and take "it" not only flys in the face of the rule, but in a culture much more sensitive to concussions and collisions in sport is esentially an officiating endorsement of punishing kids for not putting themselves at further risk.

If you want to no call it because the contact is now minimal and you don't feel they are disadvantaged I can live with that but calling a block is tantamount to saying I'm calling a foul because you are soft. And creates a much more physical and risky culture.

Now I'm not an NCAA officials and if my boss and colleagues all said "We are calling this block" then I would have to make that decision or judgement in that situation. In my current situation and by the standard the rules lay out. PC or no call.

[biggravy]

On the first block/charge- It doesn't look like L had a great angle, and he reached across two lines to get there. Granted, C didn't have much of an angle either. Not sure if C passed, or if he was hoping for a late whistle from L and would have come in even later with a strong whistle if L passed. Still, with L reaching across two lines and banging it out- that's how a blarge happens!