Quote:
Originally posted by jeffpea
All I'm simply saying is that I will give the defender more leeway on contact during a blocked shot if the defender gets a large portion of the ball or even gets the ball cleanly.
|
Why? The amount of body contact by the defender was sufficient enough to put the shooter on his butt in both cases, wasn't it? What difference does it really make whether the defender got the ball or not? He still ended up putting the shooter into the third row with the body contact in either case, didn't he? Why is one a foul and the other one ain't then? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Maybe in the NBA you let it go. Maybe-but I've seen fouls called in the NBA where a defender got all ball but also annihilated the shooter at the same time. Anywhere else though it's usually a foul if you knock the shooter down with body contact. Note that we are
not talking about cases where the force of the actual block on the ball knocks a player down- but cases where the actual body contact puts the shooter down.
Question: If a jumpshooter goes straight up and lets a 3 go--and a defender runs at him, gets a finger on the shot after it left the shooter's hands- and then bangs into the shooter and knocks him on his a$$, is everyone gonna let that one go too? If you aren't, then please explain the difference to me from that play to the one that we're discussing. Iow, if the defender didn't bang into the shooter, then the shooter wouldn't have ended up on his butt.
[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 19th, 2005 at 06:09 PM]