[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

One play that we saw on video we have a player that blocked the ball on a shot. The play that I am reading here there was no blocked shot.

That's what I read also. In the first play, the explanation as I understand it, was that the contact was incidental to a block which was (I agreed) clean on top. The contact, which came after the block, did not affect the shot, so therefore was not a foul. But in the second play, there is a missed block attempt. The shooter is subsequently contacted on his way down and is also knocked to the floor. Like the first play, the shot was not affected. Why is the second play a foul while the first is not?

And I love the comment you say as if someone is if a shooter gets knocked to the floor there must be a foul.

I believe what I said was that when a defender who is actively making a play knocks an airborne shooter to the floor, never say always, but this is pretty much gonna be a foul.