Purdue @ Michigan plays (Video)
 

Play #1:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nN1NW6xLILk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #2:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XS9wFgRyCf8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #3:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AhFOgtEi4aI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

1) Looked like obvious foul to me.
2) Good help from C but wish he was more closed down/towards play.
3) Basket counts.

I have to preface my response by saying I am a Michigan fan, so I might be biased.

A) Foul on Purdue

B) Did not watch the video because my computer doesn't like YouTube tonight

C) Basket counts

#1. That should be a foul every day.

#2. Good help...it hit the butt of the white player.

#3. Count it!

I think the first play is the only controversial play in the bunch. Full disclosure, I am a huge Michigan fan and that is why I post many of their game plays. But I do not think this is a foul. I think the defender got to the ball first and the fall was more about his momentum of being blocked. I did not see anything in the close up that told me otherwise and I hope in a real game I do not call a foul either.

Peace

Getting a little piece of the ball does not make it okay to do a cross body block on an airborne shooter.

He did not cross body block anyone. He blocked the ball. You tend to be off balance when you have someone put their hand on the object you are trying to force into the basket.

Peace

Looks to me as if there was some torso to torso contact too.

I agree, but the contact with the ball was first. The rest was incidental contact to the block.

Peace

I'm happy with DJ's pass on #1.

After further review, along with the body contact, there appears to be considerable contact on the arm as well.

There appears to be some arm contact for sure. But I see contact with the ball first and after that you will have contact with the arm. I hardly ever see a block shot attempt near the basket where there is no contact with other parts of the body. Just is not very likely IMO.

Peace

Look at the 36 second mark, when it zooms in. The ball is still in the hand of the shooter. The hand of the defender is past the ball. There is contact on the arm, followed by the contact on the torso. This is a foul.

OK, but if the ball was contacted first and the follow through involved some arm contact, in my world that is not a foul. That is expected on some level. And if there is some torso contact, then so be it as well. If he used all that arm contact and body contact to get the block, different story.

Peace

That's why those guys make the big bucks. Much easier to officiate play if you think contact = foul.

DJ had a good look and passed. That's good enough for me.

Contacting the ball first, in and of itself, gives one the right to do......nothing. By watching this video, it is not a certainty that there was any contact with the ball. (I think there was some) But what is certain is that after the ball contact, there was substantial contact with both the arm and the body which stopped any chance he had of making the shot.

That's actually good enough for me, too. If I'd had the look he had, I might have made the same call. But this video screams foul to me.

Whether the ball is contacted first means a lot at this level. You saying otherwise doesn't change that. It's pretty clear when I watch NCAA D1 games.

But this is a philosophy, and not a rule, yes?

That is the case here in high school games. That is the case in small college games. That is the case if you work for the right position.

Well what rule says otherwise?

I can look at the incidental contact rule and clearly judge that the block did not prevent the shooter from doing normal movements.

Peace

It's the case here in good HS hoops too. I only referenced NCAAM in the post cause that's the level the video is from.

If a HS player gets ball first it makes a lot incidental.....as long as the defender doesn't annihilate the airborne shooter in the process.

Oh I know. But that was for the benefit of those that try to act like high school is some pure and different level. I work for an assignor that assigns me both high school and college games. He is the head clinician in the state and told us flat out what we are to do on a blocked shot attempt. He told us "Assume they will block the shot" in our pre-weekend meeting. That was said with the IHSA Administrator in that meeting. That is all I needed to hear.

I do not totally disagree, but a lot of times the contact with the ball is going to knock a player off balance and any contact that took place is not going to be the reason the player fell, the taking your momentum out of the air while blocking the ball will. Just like someone that tries to dunk and hits the rim instead.

Peace

I'm talking more about the out of balance defender that gets ball and then crushes the shooter.....but those pretty much call themselves.

All I know is that when someone has a clean block up top and tries to sell "body down low" It's usually a weak call.

Agreed, if he gets ball first. If he cleanly swats the ball into the wall followed by minimal contact of any kind, nobody wants a foul there, except the team taking the shot. But if the defender grazes the ball with a fingertip and then follow through with contact that draws blood, what do you have then? Obviously the OP is somewhere in between. To me, with the benefit of the replay, this meets the definition of a foul.

As far as rule vs. philosophy, I'm just saying there is no provision which says:

If the defender contacts the ball first, any subsequent contact shall be ruled incidental.

I call it the roughing the kicker philosophy.

There's no provision that says it's a foul, either. It's all judgment on advantage / disadvantage.

Well if you make contact with the ball in normal action in blocking a kick you do not call any foul for RTK anyway.

Peace

That was the point. But that is the rule in football, isn't it?
There is no such rule in basketball.

And there is no such rule that says all contact is a foul. Contact can be severe and not be a foul. That is in basketball rules, not football rules. ;)

Peace

Contact can be severe and not be a foul. Conversely, contact can be minimal and be a foul, and touching the ball is coincidental to both.

Yes, I agree. And in this case I do not have a foul. I have a good block. And I looked at this play enough to not change my mind.

Peace

JRut, if in getting the ball it was knocked out of the shooter's grasp, then all that contact occurred I could maybe see your point, but shooter maintains the ball until he is contacted quite heavily by a non-vertical defender who contacts him, illegally IMO, on the arm and torso.

I have a hard time believing a college assigner/evaluator is going to look at that play and say they like the no call on that.

1. Nice block. First contact is defender's hand on ball. Defender avoids any illegal contact with body. Shooter's strong momentum along baseline towards baseline is abruptly halted by the larger defender's block. The fact the shooter falls down is just physics.

2. Good help.

3. Put him on the line.

All college supervisors or evaluates are not the same. I cannot speak for all of them or suggest that everyone agrees one way or the other.

But if the first major contact was with the ball and part of the follow through is contact with other parts of the body, I have yet to run into any supervisor that has players of this ability and height (and yes there are high school players that are this big in many places) to suggest what you are suggesting. Yes the defender might have jumped from A to B in the air, but his initial contact appears to be with the ball and mostly the ball. I have not ever had a clinician at a college game suggest that is a good foul to call. Again, that is my experience. I will not speak for others or other parts of the country.

Peace

Personally, I like a blocked shot but a LOT of contact (before or after touching the ball) on an airborne player is a foul to me. If this official looks at this video, I don't think he will like the no call, either.

Don't be so sure about that one. I doubt other than me posting this it was much of a though unless the supervisor said something. And I doubt that happened either. Just a guess, but I have never seen this play highlighted as being a foul at the college level. They put out videos every week too.

Peace

I don't know about "highlighting" anything on any level but I see a lot less contact than this every night on TV that is routinely called a foul. College level. Admittedly, most of the games I watch are ACC contests but those guys are not bad officials.

Also, I didn't consult with any supervisors when making my humble opinion. Thanks for all your work on the videos. I save a lot of them for review next fall at our meetings.

The issue is not how much contact as contact can be severe and never be a foul, the issue is how did the contact take place or is the play an acceptable amount on a blocked shot. I watch a lot of ACC games and I see nothing different here than I would in those games. The reality is that many officials that work in the BIG, work in the ACC (especially now). Not saying anything about the quality of the officials, just stating that I see nothing highlighted in weekly videos that this should be a foul and there are many similar plays like this every week. Now if you can find me a play where that shows this as a foul, I will post it for the very same reason I did here. Because if a foul was called, you would have heard the same reaction from the Purdue side of the gym.

Thanks. Glad you like them and can use them. That after all is the point.

Well I post the videos for these discussions. That is what I love about them as it brings a lot of different point of views to the table. Not all of us are right or wrong, we just are sharing our judgment process. At the end of the day someone else will decide what we should do or not do.

Peace

Actually, this would've been hard for the L to see in my opinion because of where the contact occurred. I think T probably has the best look.