Camron Rust Good call...in the RA (clearly) when he got both feet down in the path....thus it was a block. If not for the RA, he would have had LGP and it would/should have been a charge.
bob jenkins Camron Rust wroteGood call...in the RA (clearly) when he got both feet down in the path....thus it was a block. If not for the RA, he would have had LGP and it would/should have been a charge. I'm not sure he had LGP before the offensive player went airborne -- so I have a block either way.
bucky I have a block but not sure on act of shooting. The foul occurs on the landing imo. I noticed ref did not call it based on the RA, or at least he did not use the mechanic to signal it.
JRutledge bucky wroteI have a block but not sure on act of shooting. The foul occurs on the landing imo. I noticed ref did not call it based on the RA, or at least he did not use the mechanic to signal it. I think he had a gather and then continued without hesitation. I think this was a good call on the shooting foul front. Peace
Camron Rust bob jenkins wroteI'm not sure he had LGP before the offensive player went airborne -- so I have a block either way. You're right about that. He definitely didn't have LGP before the offensive player went airborne. However, the next question is whether the offensive player landed before contact....that is really close would be a hair to be split either way.
ilyazhito This would be a block any day of the week, RA or no RA. Defender did not establish legal guarding position prior to the shooter going airborne. CC.