That's fine, just don't make me sit next to Chuck. :)

Geez, M&M's right - we were so busy arguing about the contact, we ignored the mechanics question!!

If we're talking 3-person, who's area is it in?

If it's coming down the C's side, let C have first crack at it all the way to the hoop - the sitch as described clearly involves a primary defender, and if it is in front of the centre, (s)he sees the play from start to finish.

If it's T/L side, Lead needs to see where Trail is. If it's a quick transition play, T may not yet be in the frontcourt when the play happens. If so, L likely has the best look. T could also have a look, but will be 80 feet away when (s)he blows the whistle.

If the play is fully in the frontcourt and on L/T side, let T take it all the way, with L watching for any secondary defenders sliding in or going for the block at the last second. But the primary matchup (ie. A1 and B1) belongs to the Trail.

If Trail passes on the contact, and Lead feels it's something that HAS to be called, (s)he can take it.

If we're talking 2-Person, chances are Lead has the first whistle, unless it's a fully-settled frontcourt play - then often Trail can take the play all the way.

Whoa there, podner. Now I think that you're taking this sitch outa context a little, Tom.

The description of the contact on this particular play wasn't general; it was very specific. The contact was initiated from a defender behind an airborne shooter, displaced that airborne shooter and then dumped him flat on his butt. The shooter doesn't hit the deck without the contact. Two very distinct elements were involved-- definite displacement on the shot and a shooter subsequently ending up on the floor as a result of that displacement. We weren't talking about any other different forms of defensive contact after a good block. I agree that <b>all</b> forms of contact after a good block doesn't necessarily mean that a foul is involved. Those situations are judged on their individual merit by the calling official and some sureashell aren't fouls and shouldn't be called as such.

That clarify my take on this one a l'il better?

JR,

The original post definitely said there was displacement, but the reality is that is still up to the eyes of the officials that is judging the play. I realize that that might seem cut and dry, but unfortunately what causes the player to fall to the ground is always up for debate. That is why way back at nearly the beginning of this thread I stated that is all based on the judgment of the official. It is clear that all officials do not share the same judgment. I have called many games with officials of all different levels and it is clear that we all do not think a "foul is a foul."

Peace

You guys might've been napping in class, but I wasn't. He got my attention and I didn't ignore it. But what he said was that the most significant criterion for calling this play was your postition. I don't know if he really meant that or not, but that's what he said. I asked him to clarify that statement and commented that if a guy gets hammered on a drive to the basket, then somebody has to have a whistle; and if I have to call it from the T instead of the L, so be it.

You're in trouble now. Starting Sunday, I'm gonna be on you like white on rice!! :D

:confused: I don't get it. The wild rice my wife fixes is kinda brown and black.

Don't you mean more like stink on sh!t?

:D

I think -- Reaching through the boundary line and contacting the inbounder.

More like short on this guy

http://rantburg.com/images/mini-me.jpg

Bob gets a C- also.

Is there a reference for this other than 4.19.6? It doesn't say "contact" there; it says "fouls" the inbounder.

Should we try to split that hair?

Is the shot blocked first?

If I'm reading the original post correctly, Tom, the block and the contact/displacement occurred at approximately the same time, followed by the shooter hitting the deck as a direct result of the contact/displacement.

Does it really matter though? Aren't we supposed to protect an airborne shooter? Nobody has addressed a question I asked yesterday yet . If a jumpshooter goes straight up for a 3-pointer, and a defender then runs at him from in front, the side, behind- whatever-- gets a finger on the shot and then plows into the jumpshooter, displacing him and knocking him on his a$$-- do you use the same rationale in trying to decide whether a foul occurred or not- or do you just call the foul for not allowing the jumpshooter a normal landing and being displaced and knocked down? Is that a record for a run-on sentence? :) What's the difference between these two plays?

Does it really matter when you contact an airborne shooter if you displace and dump him?

I don't have my books with me, so I wasn't sure the exact wording of the rule.

That said, since "touching the ball" (not "preventing a throw-in" or "dislodging the ball") is a T, wouldn't the correlary be that "touching a player" would be an IP?

I've never seen the latter, and in the few times that I've seen the former the contact was sufficent that had it been on the player instead of the ball I'd likely have had a "foul".