Calipari and Pitino both whacked

[BlueDevilRef]

Ok now I see the arm of the red player and would judge it a no call. But in live action when I was watching the other day on tv, I thought it was a white foul


I wish I had a cool signature

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by RedAndWhiteRef

Did anyone notice how Louisville unraveled as soon as Pitino got T'd up? That's such poor coaching IMO. Not sure how you manage to get yourself whacked in that stage of a tight game.

That stage of a tight game? It was still the 1st half.

From a coaching perspective I can see why Pitino was upset. But that was absolutely the right no call on the block shot and agree with others on a potential PC with the use of the off hand by the shooter.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly. Offensive player cleared out with the lead arm.....and still got his shot blocked.

I don't see a "clear out" by the L'ville player, but, I do see his right arm essentially wrap around the shoulder/arm of the defender effectively holding the defender as he attempts to dunk the ball. The body contact from the defender is secondary, albeit, by a split second.

The bottom clip at the :25 second mark reveals the offensive player's sin.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Apparently I'm in the minority, but that's a foul. Defender is nowhere close to vertical and comes into the shooter's body to get to the ball. And as far as a "push off" the offensive player looks to be in his normal shooting/dunking motion, not actively trying to clear space. Then to call a cheap scramble foul on the same guy that just got hammered at the other end and have to T the coach because he had something to say about it, that's rough.

Yup. In the minority. The block/contact was 90/10 as in 90% block and then about 20% contact. At this level that is expected to be treated as a clean block. Any contact after is treated as incidental unless egregious.

The foul on the other end was a foul and depending on how the rest of the game was called could either be consistent with the level of play or not. But it was NOT a no call. Especially since the contact caused the player to lose possession of the ball.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by APG

In fact, I'd go to say....that if the shot hadn't been blocked cleanly...I'd be leaning toward a PC foul due to the offensive guy grabbing the defender's shoulder/arm as he was reaching for the ball. Not a call you really see much at the college level (mostly cause players aren't skilled enough to do this for the most part)...and more something you see in the pro game.

Why would you let him off the hook because the shot was blocked?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Why would you let him off the hook because the shot was blocked?

Because the defender was clearly not hindered from normal defensive movements.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by deecee

Yup. In the minority. The block/contact was 90/10 as in 90% block and then about 20% contact. At this level that is expected to be treated as a clean block. Any contact after is treated as incidental unless egregious.

The foul on the other end was a foul and depending on how the rest of the game was called could either be consistent with the level of play or not. But it was NOT a no call. Especially since the contact caused the player to lose possession of the ball.

The defender is moving toward the offensive player and does not maintain verticality, and is only able to block that shot because he did so. A foul would seem to be supported by the rule book would it not? I understand that interpretation isn't "big time" and I'm ok with that.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

The defender is moving toward the offensive player and does not maintain verticality, and is only able to block that shot because he did so. A foul would seem to be supported by the rule book would it not? I understand that interpretation isn't "big time" and I'm ok with that.

Contact happens after, or pretty much inline with, the block. Not all contact is a foul.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

The defender is moving toward the offensive player and does not maintain verticality, and is only able to block that shot because he did so. A foul would seem to be supported by the rule book would it not? I understand that interpretation isn't "big time" and I'm ok with that.

Which contact happened first? Contact by the defender moving into the shooter, or the shooter hooking/holding the defender? That would help me answer the question.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

The defender is moving toward the offensive player and does not maintain verticality, and is only able to block that shot because he did so. A foul would seem to be supported by the rule book would it not? I understand that interpretation isn't "big time" and I'm ok with that.

Verticality doesn't even come into play. Incredible block with a PC I'm not calling. This is a major reason you watch plays from start to finish. Even if there was contact to watch, which there wasn't, contact before and after a block are very different. Semi-similar to contact before and after a steal. Be careful mingling incidental contact with contact fouls. It'll get you into a bad habit when watching plays and making incorrect calls. Once a ball is BLOCKED contact is different then if it happened before the block.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

I don't see a "clear out" by the L'ville player, but, I do see his right arm essentially wrap around the shoulder/arm of the defender effectively holding the defender as he attempts to dunk the ball. The body contact from the defender is secondary, albeit, by a split second.

The bottom clip at the :25 second mark reveals the offensive player's sin.

Pretty much the same thing.