You Make The Call

Pantherdreams

What contact there was: - did not disadvantage/impede the defense they were already on the way to the floor. - did not disadvantage/impede the offense, shot was made and offense trying to avoid contact with a falling object causes him to end up with an awkward landing not the contact it self.

Seems to me to be a clear no call LGP, responsibility for contact aside etc.

bainsey

BillyMac wrote
Seldom used. In fact, I've never seen it used, ever, in thirty years of officiating.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it, including once myself. There were a few times when I thought I saw it, but thinking it isn't enough. One must be positive.

I believe the OP's video is a perfect example. The defender started falling back before the shooter even got there.

Adam

btaylor64 wrote
Nice play. It's a block.

Well color me shawked!

btaylor64

Snaqwells wrote
Well color me shawked!

Simple. Can't slide to draw contact once player is airborne in HS and NCAA rules, right? Exactly what happens here. Contact disrupts the airborne player's natural motion or "rhythm" in attempting to score and causes him to go to the ground.

Adam

BillyMac wrote
Seldom used. In fact, I've never seen it used, ever, in thirty years of officiating. But we have it in our "holster" if we need it.

I've used it once, in a 7th grade YMCA game, after a warning to player and coach, when the defender grunted and fell backwards as the dribbler got to within about 6 feet of the defender.

Kelvin green

CLH wrote
With all due respect...you state the contact is marginal, but you would call a foul...it's one of the other, if its marginal, no foul, if its a block its not marginal.

(kinda like how something can be new and yet still improved, lol)

Second, two players falling on the ground, does not a foul make. Just because a play is ugly does not mean a foul occurred. "If two players go down, I'm calling a foul" is one of the "personal philosophies" that we have been trying to get away from in the last few years.

regards,
ch

As mentioned before marginal and incidental are not equal. With all due respect...Suggest that you go back and look at the definition of incidental.. When contact interferes with a normal offensive or defensive play it is not incidental. This paly interfered either with a LGP or the ability to come down unimpeded. Based on what I saw in video with the lean, I would call a block, however rather have a charge here than nothing.

Calling this one way or the other at least tells the team something will be called. Teams will get better position or hold up on shots. I have seen games where a play like the one shown is a no call and then you get 6-7 more like it, call one and you get less...

Brad

If you have a call, it should be a block. If you have a no call, I could live with that as well.

Calling a PC on this is horrible.

The offensive player doesn't make any contact with the chest. He barely makes contact at all -- the defensive player's right arm touches the offensive players hip and then the defensive player flops to the floor.

This isn't even close. If you think it is, go full screen on YouTube so that you can get a better look!

NoFear2020

Snaqwells wrote
B1 has lgp. A1 jumps and his hip hits B1's shoulder, knocking both to the floor. I'll defer to the guy with the best view of the actual contact and assume the contact was enough for a foul. I'm with MTD, Sr., on this one.

In fact B1 never obtain legal guarding position.
NFHS Rule 4-23-2.
To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
A. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
B. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.
This can be seen at the start of video.

NoFear2020

Snaqwells wrote
Ok, first, I still maintain that B1 has LGP, but after watching it a little more closely, I agree he continued to slide to his right after A1 went airborne. There would have been no contact had he maintained the spot he held when A1 took off.

block, but I think it's close enough to give the official a pass.

In fact B1 Never:eek: obtain Legal Guarding Position.:p
Rule 4-23-2.😉

Adam

NoFear2020 wrote
In fact B1 never obtain legal guarding position.
NFHS Rule 4-23-2.
To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
A. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
B. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.
This can be seen at the start of video.

At :02 and :11 seconds (the picture is much clearer at :11), you can see B1 facing A1 with both feet on the floor. A1's foot is still on the floor prior to his takeoff. He does have LGP. His problem is, it doesn't allow him to lean his shoulder to the right to force contact.

NoFear2020

Snaqwells wrote
So A1, moving quickly and taking long strides, gathers for a layup at around 25 feet away from the hoop. He gathers with both feet in the air, mid stride, lands on his right foot (at the three point line), takes one more stride with his left (just inside the free throw line) and launches off that left foot for a dunk. B1 got into position as A1 was midstrde between his right and left feet You're calling a block? You're using the wrong rule. The rule you quote (4-41-3) does not state when the defender must get to his spot, its only purpose is to determine whether a shot counts with a defensive foul before the ball is released.

APG's case play and the rule it notes (4-23-5) would be a great place to start.

YES I think you might have it know:rolleyes:, although the strides in this particular play are a bit unrealistic:confused: but if someone where able to realize such a distance it would be legal:cool:.
Rule 4- 41 is trying to tell you when the shot has begun.
I have not received the NFHS 2011-12 Case Book.:mad:
What is APG?:confused:
NFHS Rule 4-23-5 speaks of guarding a moving opponent without the ball.

Camron Rust

Pantherdreams wrote
What contact there was: - did not disadvantage/impede the defense they were already on the way to the floor. - did not disadvantage/impede the offense, shot was made and offense trying to avoid contact with a falling object causes him to end up with an awkward landing not the contact it self.

Seems to me to be a clear no call LGP, responsibility for contact aside etc.

The defense's movement (flop if you want) created the contact. It caused the shooter to be flipped partially over and to the floor....protect the shooter....call the block. If the shooter had stayed upright and on his feet, no call.

APG

NoFear2020 wrote
YES I think you might have it know:rolleyes:, although the strides in this particular play are a bit unrealistic:confused: but if someone where able to realize such a distance it would be legal:cool:.
Rule 4- 41 is trying to tell you when the shot has begun.
I have not received the NFHS 2011-12 Case Book.:mad:
What is APG?:confused:
NFHS Rule 4-23-5 speaks of guarding a moving opponent without the ball.

APG=short hand for my username.

Rule 4-41 tells us when the try begins, but that has nothing to do with whether a defender got a LGP in time. Knowing when the try begins is only important in determining if continuous motion will apply on a defensive foul.

Also guarding a moving opponent without the ball is the same as guarding a moving opponent with the ball with the only exception being that time and distance apply to a defender trying to gain LGP against the moving defender without the ball.

Adam

NoFear2020 wrote
YES I think you might have it know:rolleyes:, although the strides in this particular play are a bit unrealistic:confused: but if someone where able to realize such a distance it would be legal:cool:.
Rule 4- 41 is trying to tell you when the shot has begun.
I have not received the NFHS 2011-12 Case Book.:mad:
What is APG?:confused:
NFHS Rule 4-23-5 speaks of guarding a moving opponent without the ball.

The distances aren't that out of line, frankly. 6 foot strides for a fast moving player isn't unheard of.

Okay, "APG" = "AllPurposeGamer". He posted the case play, even quoted it so you don't need your book. Also, check out case play 10.6.1C, in particular the ruling portion, which states in part:

B1 is entitled to the position gained legally before A1 left the floor

You're right, I hadn't read the rule book today. It's 4-23-4b

If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

Note that it doesn't say position must be gained before the shooting motion has begun; only that it must be gained before the opponent leaves the floor.

NoFear2020

Snaqwells wrote
At :02 and :11 seconds (the picture is much clearer at :11), you can see B1 facing A1 with both feet on the floor. A1's foot is still on the floor prior to his takeoff. He does have LGP. His problem is, it doesn't allow him to lean his shoulder to the right to force contact.

By that time (:11) B1 facing A1 with both feet on the floor he is late:eek:, he did not met the requirements under rule 4-23-2:mad:
At :02 B1 is just in the lane, and by the time :11 A1 had already started his shot. BLOCK on B1😉

NoFear2020

Snaqwells wrote
The distances aren't that out of line, frankly. 6 foot strides for a fast moving player isn't unheard of.

Okay, "APG" = "AllPurposeGamer". He posted the case play, even quoted it so you don't need your book. Also, check out case play 10.6.1C, in particular the ruling portion, which states in part:

You're right, I hadn't read the rule book today. It's 4-23-4b

Note that it doesn't say position must be gained before the shooting motion has begun; only that it must be gained before the opponent leaves the floor.

B1 move into that spot after the motion started. Block:rolleyes:

NoFear2020

AllPurposeGamer wrote
APG=short hand for my username.

Rule 4-41 tells us when the try begins, but that has nothing to do with whether a defender got a LGP in time. Knowing when the try begins is only important in determining if continuous motion will apply on a defensive foul.

Also guarding a moving opponent without the ball is the same as guarding a moving opponent with the ball with the only exception being that time and distance apply to a defender trying to gain LGP against the moving defender without the ball.

Right, Rule 4-23 speaks on LGP

NoFear2020

Snaqwells wrote
And nowhere does it say the defender has to be in that position before the shooting motion begins.

try rule 4-41-3 and rule 4-23.

So what are you calling on this play?
No call?
Player Control?
When determining if we have a foul we need to ask, did contact affect the rhythm speed balance or quickness of the opponent?
If so the we should have something.

APG

NoFear2020 wrote
try rule 4-41-3 and rule 4-23.

So what are you calling on this play?
No call?
Player Control?
When determining if we have a foul we need to ask, did contact affect the rhythm speed balance or quickness of the opponent?
If so the we should have something.

Again, 4-41-3 does not apply to legal guarding position...heck even guarding at all. It tells us when the try begins and that's only important in determining whether CONTINUOUS MOTION will apply when the defense commits a foul.

4-23
ART. 4 ...Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without the ball:

b. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position BEFORE the opponent left the floor.

The bold part is my emphasis. Nowhere does it say that LGP must be obtained before the gather.

Raymond

NoFear2020 wrote
By that time (:11) B1 facing A1 with both feet on the floor he is late:eek:, he did not met the requirements under rule 4-23-2:mad:
At :02 B1 is just in the lane, and by the time :11 A1 had already started his shot. BLOCK on B1😉

Why do you keep bringing up "started his shot"? It has nothing to do with the play.

It's a block in this play b/c of the unnatural width of B1's stance which is what caused the contact between B1's leg and A1's foot.

BTW, I just realized I know the calling official in this video. I'm gonna have to ask him about this play when I see him this fall.

« Previous Page Next Page »