Agree or disagree
 

Good no call or missed call?


https://twitter.com/DNewsRewind/stat...580377600?s=03

To me, that's a foul. More than incidental body contact. Also, contact happened before or simultaneous to the play on the ball rather than after.

Agree with HokiePaul.

Unless the officials on the court really believed the shooter embellished the contact, that is clearly a foul.

Also, looks like at least 2 asst(?) coaches come onto the court to argue the call.

Looks like an interesting game to work/observe.

How many pre-game's do we talk about not penalizing a defender that maintains "verticality"? How many times do we discuss this scenario in the sense people come to these types of games to see the bigs block shots, dunk, etc.?

This video clearly illustrates B1 didn't maintain verticality. His momentum ensured his body moved into and through A1 while attempting a shot. But, it also illustrates the "let the bigs block shots, that's why people are here" vernacular.

I'd be interested to know how many other shots white blocked that night previous to this play. Were they similar? If so, and no foul was called, I'd probably lay off this one too. I might lay off it even if it was the first blocked shot of the game.

Whatever the case, I hope the crew was consistent.

Shooting foul.

Looks like a good block to me.

Peace

Foul, no matter what else was or wasn't called earlier in the game.

Foul each and every time.

Body first, then ball. Foul IMO.

I'm a big fan on passing on incidental contact after a block, but this isn't that.

Foul. Even if he got the ball just before contact, the contact is too much to pass on.

PF by a defender against an offensive player in the Act of Shooting.

MTD, Sr.

That there is a shooting foul fellers. Cmon. At any level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In YMCA 5th grade girls game , this would be a foul in the act of shooting [SF]
In my daily NF games, that would be a SF
In NCAA March Madness, that would also be a SF.
In summer league rec ball, that would be a "play on" type of sitch.
Hey just putting the act in proper 'context' ok:)

Foul.

To me that's clearly a foul. I've been lectured on the "let the bigs block shots, that's why people are here" vernacular also, but I don't agree with that mentality for high school ball. A foul is a foul no matter how cool it looked.

I think there is a distinction between letting a big block a shot and bumping a shooter on the way down vs. going through the shooter while blocking the ball. This is the latter...and a foul.

I call the game the exact way at the high school level as any other level I would call. I am OK with the contact if there is ball first. And players falling should not be the reason we call a foul. The player could land totally on their feet and I would feel the same way about the play either way. If a player touches his arm or misses the ball, this is a foul all the time. I have made several of those types of calls regardless of the way the shooter falls. And in some cases, the shooter never feel and it looked like a clean block to others, but the contact was with the wrist or head.

This idea that we do something so "pure" at the high school level is so annoying. Because when you call things that are clear rules that are held at other levels as well, we get a lot of blowback about those calls. So I guess it is funny when people say, "That would be a call at the high school level" when we have officials that cannot call simple hand-checking rules that are clearly listed as fouls. This is at best an interpretation situation more than anything.

For the record, I think this looks like a clean block, but I do not have the look that the officials did as they were a lot closer to the play. But if a foul is called, I am OK with it, I just find the parts as if a high school game matters in the decision. The rules or philosophy are the same where I live.

Peace

Call a couple handchecks after judging the OP as a play-on, and you’ll get a fair share of blowback. At any level.

It's the vernacular not to call fouls when there is slight or incidental body contact. The play in question is not slight or incidental body contact. But I've seen many times here on the Peninsula where officials come running out with fouls based on contact that had nothing to do with the blocked shot.

Just as it is wrong to not call a foul on this play, it's just as wrong to call fouls when there isn't one, high school or college ball.

The hand-checking rule has nothing to do with the amount of contact, and neither should this play. Again, the plays have nothing to do with each other.

Peace

That's a good way to put it. I don't think officials should go looking for fouls on plays where "some" contact does not affect the play. If there is no advantage gained, then maybe it doesn't need to be called at all. However, the OP video is too much contact to pass on.

I agree.

Agree ...
 

Bingo.

How is this not a foul? The defender jumps to block the shot and is clearly not vertical when he makes contact with the airborne shooter.

The kid got the shot off and then it was blocked so contact could be called incid...

Wait. That guy in third row, the one who has been helping me with the three second counts all night, he was kind enough to remind me.

It's an over the back!

Thanks everyone for your posts and feedback!

Merry Christmas!