Here is a question and a situation that happens often, just want to get everyone's opinion on how they see this play.

A1 is going up for a lay up and B1 is trailing the play, as A1 places the ball on the backboard B1 blocks the shot but in turn makes body contact with A1 and displaces his body so he in turns hits the floor. Foul or incidental contact?

IMHO This is a game situation call, in some games I have called this a foul and in others I haven't. It all depends if I am at the L or the T or C. At the L I am looking for the body contact not at the shot at the T and C I am focus on the release point showing a good block. I'm listening!

If shooter A1 hits the floor in this case, call the foul. Most assignors I know would rather have you call it here, if for no other reason than to keep the game from getting even more physical.

I have said this before many times on this site. It depends on the judgment of the official.

Many times players are just out of control and we bail out the offensive player by calling a foul on a defender that did not do anything. I do not think a call is an "automatic." Basketball is a contact sport and there is going to be contact. It is our judgment to decide if the contact was illegal. I know you said there was displacement, but that is a judgment call or decision. Other officials might not think so and not call anything.

Peace

Great question to which the answers I am all ears. I'm a real greenhorn to the world of officiating. My question is: if this call is made, what is the official foul called in this case? I've had to forget all the false definitions I learned as a casual fan ("over the back", "hacking", etc.) and must now learn to narrow my focus to the APPROVED fouls and their related signals.

I think a "push" will do.

Peace

Too many variables to have a catch-all call.

I have heard, and use, the phrase, "Body then ball foul, ball then body nothing," but you must consider how severe the contact was after the clean block and if LGP and verticality are in play, as well.

I think the game itself factors into the call, too. A physical or rivalry game is more likely to get a foul call in this situation just to keep things under control.

As Rut mentioned at times the lack of body control by the shooter will cause them to hit the floor much more than any contact.

Just be aware of the defense, know the timing of the block/body contact, factor in the mood/level of play, and don't bail out an out of control shooter.

Pretty easy.:D

Just don't go to the table and slap it saying, "I've got a walk here," after a travel, ala your namesake.:D

The blocked shot is one of the crowd-pleasing plays in a game (like the dunk, a great pass, etc.). If a defender gets his hand on the ball for a block, I'm going to let some contact pass that I would not otherwise.

Think about it - when a shot is blocked, everyone focuses on the ball (and where it went) and NOT the shooter who may or may not have fallen because of the contact. During a blocked shot, if I've got the shooter on the floor (depending on contact) - then I'm probably going to pass on the call. If the same scenario happens but the shooter and defender are BOTH on the floor, then I'll have a foul the vast majority of the time.

IMHO, the higher the level of play (HS, college, pro), the more contact you can allow on a block shot.

So we should no-call it to please the crowd and we can get away with it because everyone is ball watching, brilliant.:rolleyes:

Lah me.

NFHS case book 4.19.3SitB play tells you how the FED wants this exact same play called. NCAA supervisors also will give out their own philosophies to their groups. Different conferences allow different levels of contact.

Why are so many people trying to apply NBA philosophies to lower level games? In the high school game, it's a foul if the contact makes the shooter hit the deck. Too much contact, you have to maybe think about intentional, but that one is judgement. The purpose and intent of the rule is to protect an airborne shooter when he's at his utmost vulnerability. If you let defenders knock airborne shooters on their a$$, then you aren't protecting them at all imo.

Who said this was an NBA philosophy?
 

Well that is still a judgment call. And I can read a lot of things in the casebook you or I would never call. So using the casebook in this case is not going to solve this play. This is just a philosophy, not a one size fits all application.

Peace

Blindzebra - I think you'll notice the "general-ness" (to make up a word) of my comments. We're talking about a judgement play....a "you have to be there to see it" situation. I'm sure you'll agree that every time a shooter falls down it is not the result of contact by a defender. You'll also agree that there are very few block shots in a game where there is absolutely no contact by the defender on any part of the shooters' body.

All I'm simply saying is that I will give the defender more leeway on contact during a blocked shot if the defender gets a large portion of the ball or even gets the ball cleanly.

I have to totally agree with Jeff on this one. Show me a block (especially in the boy's game) where there is no contact, and I will show you a game that does not resemble basketball. I have yet to see a 6'8" center not make contact any contact on a block shot. I have called fouls where no one fell to the floor. I agree that maybe we should not call a foul just to please the fans, but are we not pleasing the fans when we call a foul because a player hit the floor hard? We have to use our judgment to decide why they hit the floor.

Peace

Why? The amount of body contact by the defender was sufficient enough to put the shooter on his butt in both cases, wasn't it? What difference does it really make whether the defender got the ball or not? He still ended up putting the shooter into the third row with the body contact in either case, didn't he? Why is one a foul and the other one ain't then? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe in the NBA you let it go. Maybe-but I've seen fouls called in the NBA where a defender got all ball but also annihilated the shooter at the same time. Anywhere else though it's usually a foul if you knock the shooter down with body contact. Note that we are <b>not</b> talking about cases where the force of the actual block on the ball knocks a player down- but cases where the actual body contact puts the shooter down.

Question: If a jumpshooter goes straight up and lets a 3 go--and a defender runs at him, gets a finger on the shot after it left the shooter's hands- and then bangs into the shooter and knocks him on his a$$, is everyone gonna let that one go too? If you aren't, then please explain the difference to me from that play to the one that we're discussing. Iow, if the defender didn't bang into the shooter, then the shooter wouldn't have ended up on his butt.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 19th, 2005 at 06:09 PM]

I don't think Rut's saying you NEVER call a foul, but only that there are cases where a no-call might be okay.

There are several degrees of "hitting the floor", and we need to witness it before making a call, I think.

I had a play at this tournament recently:

A1 on a fast break, goes up for layup, and B1, a taller player, gets a piece of it and blocks it. I was ready to no-call it until B1's shoulder bumped A1 on the way down, causing him to hit the "stanchion" (:D there, I used the word - are you happy Camron, Juulie, Chuck, and Bob?).

I remember it seeming like an eternity between the ball getting blocked, and the defender hitting the shooter. No one on the floor complained, no coaches complained.

And, for what it's worth (which is not much), the crowd let out a huge "OHHHHH" in applause after the block - but did not express any disapproval after I called the foul.

Bottom line here is this is one of those ones you just gotta see.

Canucklehead(:D), we are talking about a very specific play here- not the variations and what-ifs that are being brought up. The play as described in the original post was <b>displacing</b> a shooter from behind with enough force to knock him on his a$$. In that particular play, what difference does it really make if the ball was contacted or not?

I agree that there are different degrees and situations involving shooter-defender contact, but in the play as descibed, I can't see how anything but a foul could be called. You displace the shooter hard enough to dump him? You don't allow the shooter a normal landing but instead put him on his butt upside down? That's good enough for me.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 19th, 2005 at 06:45 PM]

Yeah, I see your point, there's a huge difference there ;)

Never??? I find that hard to believe. I've seem some big guys get up and swat a small guard's airborne shot away with nothing even close to contact. Looked like basketball to me...takes guys that can jump though.

There's no judgment involved at all if he gets the ball cleanly. And there should be no judgment involved if the shooter gets knocked to the floor. The judgment comes in if the contact is slight, and the defender is in legal position. In the play described at the beginning of this thread, the defender was trying to block the ball from behind, so the position was not legal, and there was contact. No judgment at all. Foul. Period.

One of the things that disappoints me about conversations such as this one on this forum is that people tend to use extreme examples to illustrate their point. I'm not talking about either extreme in this case - a strong block w/ a slight touch on the shooter OR a strong block w/ a HUGE amount of contact.

I wish I had some video clips to illustrate my point. I officiate high school and college ball. The games that I do are usually pretty competitive with pretty good athletes. I will allow a player to block a shot cleanly "up top" and make contact (WITHIN REASON) with his body after blocking the shot. To me, that's a good defensive play. If there is an large amount of contact, then I've got to call a foul. If the defender has to go thru the shooter and sufficient contact occurs BEFORE the block - then I've got a foul.

The blocked shot is one of the more athletic or "beautiful" parts of the game. I prefer not to call a "game interrupter" if I can help it. Sometimes I can't - but I want to give the defender the benefit of the doubt if he has blocked the ball cleanly up top.

Good example:

I was reffing at a camp and I called a foul on a kid for hitting the other kid across the arm while in the act of shooting and as soon as it left the hand of the shooter a kid came over and threw it into the third row, then one of the NBA officials come over there and says I have to let that go because of the shot block that was about to happen. I understand that especially at the college level, but in high school level if a kid is hitting the floor my supervisor wants a whistle.

But in the case of the block on the backboard:

high school: Tweet!
college : Play on!

Trust me though I don't want to call it in high school.

Rainmaker: you are saying there is no LGP, you are right, but I was taught that this is an athletic basketball play, and I use the philosophy blindzebra used or talked about, "ball before body" not "body before ball".

In the extreme case of the shot and it the shot being nicked, unless the kid runs through him, I have a no call, but that is definitely one of those "I had to be there" plays.

Overall I think either way in HS is good but in college i would not advise blowing this one.( I am talking about the blocked shot on the backboard)

I am on such an officiating high right now. Everbody needs to keep it coming all day tommorrow forever. I think the forum is starting to pick up a little bit.

Why would you call it in HS? What rule are you using to have a whistle in a high school game because the shot was blocked on the backboard?

Z

Hey, Z, try to keep up here. He's talking about the play under discussion, which is where the ball is blocked from behind, and there's enough contact to knock the kid down.

Hey Rainmaker,

Watch your manners. :rolleyes:

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Jul 20th, 2005 at 01:09 AM]

Okay, I'm watching...

.....

.....

Does something happen pretty soon?

Hope so ... seems as if you're having a slow night.

Z

Not sure how you can say there is no judgment involved. Of course there is judgment, not all officials see the play the same way. Some of officials are not in position to tell if there is a block or to determine if the contact warrants a foul or the contact should be passed on. I also think again 4-27 still applies here. If the contact did not hinder the offensive player from doing their normal activities, it is not simply a foul.

I am with Jeff again. I work some kids that can really leap and it is not often on a block shot there is absolutely no contact. If we called every little contact made, we would not work any more games. I worked a summer league game yesterday with two programs that routinely have D1 prospects on their teams. They game had a lot of contact and players playing above the rim. If I called fouls on blocked shots with some contact, I would have got run out of there.

Peace

I meant there's no judgment involved if there's no contact, which is what I thought he meant when he said "blocks the ball cleanly." There's also no judgment if the contact is such that the shooter gets knocked to the floor. That's gotta be a foul every time. Nothing to think about.

I'm not the one that didn't know what play we were discussing!

How can that be a foul every time? So a player falls to the floor we have to call a foul? What about how they got there?

Peace

I said "contact such that the shooter gets knocked to the floor." I'm not talking about flops. I'm talking about contact that causes the shooter to fall.

Jeff, you're using different examples yourself to try and make your point. And, Lah me, I'm getting sick of hearing tired mantras like "game interrupters" being cited when they aren't relevant at all to the play being discussed imo.

This play was set out fairly explicitly from the git-go.

<b>You have a shooter who's already left his feet and committed himself to a shot. You have a defender who now comes from behind and makes contact with that shooter with sufficient force to not only to displace that shooter physically from his original airborne path but to also make the shooter fall on his a$$. Now, sometime while displacing the shooter and then subsequently dumping the shooter on his butt, the defender also happened to touch the ball</b>.

That's the play we were asked about in the very first post in this thread. What disappoints me is people who now won't answer a very simple question--i.e. "Is that a foul or not?"

Jeff, if you hit an airborne shooter from behind, after that shooter has already left his feet, with enough force to not only displace that shooter from his original path but to knock him on his a$$ also, is that a foul or not? Yes or no? I just wanna know where you stand on this very particular play.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 20th, 2005 at 05:57 AM]

JR, I'm sorry you are getting tired of hearing it but the term "game interrupter" is something that is relevant right now for basketball. Everyone wants to have this huge gap between HS and college ball when it just doesn't always exist. I live in an area where some HS leagues are better than some college leagues I do. The rules aren't that much different so why should I approach the game so different? Constantly having "and one" plays in HS and/or college are game interrupters. It kills me when someone wants to constantly count the bucket but doesn't know when a player is gathering to shoot a foul should be a shooting foul all of the time. There is no difference in this rule between HS, college and the NBA.
I got of track for a second there. I cannot picture a scenario in my mind where I will call anything contact a foul all of the time. This is judgement and feel. The players are getting more athletic everyday and certa.............I'm really trying to picture this and it just isn't coming up as a automatic foul. Allow these players to block shots!

"lah me" - what does that mean and where did you get it from? Something I'm just wondering.

Lah me.

Forty-five years ago when I was a baby starting out, I was told not to call "cheap fouls". I asked whatinthehell a "cheap foul" was. The reply was a foul that didn't affect the outcome of the play- in the judgement of the official who had jurisdiction of the call.

Forty-five years later, all I hear is clinicians rambling on about stuff like "game interrupters" like they were just personally responsible for discovering the meaning of life. Well, in my case, all they are trying to do is teach an old dog old tricks. This ain't a new concept at all, folks. Been around forever- under different names.

It kills me when someone simply changes the vernacular of an long-time accepted recommendation on how to call the game, and then tries to take credit for it by intimating that it's something new and revolutionary. That my point, not that "game interrupters" by that particular name or any name are wrong or bad. Obviously they aren't.

See where I coming from now, Tom?

Btw, just as obviously, my own personal opinion is that if a defender physically displaces an airborne shooter and then knocks him on his a$$, it's a foul. Even in the....wait for it....SEC.

I can understand where you are coming from so in return I hope you can understand where some of us are coming from. I'm trying to use the terms used in the conferences I'm in. I have been around long enough to here things like "see the consequences of the ball" which is basically the same thing. However, I'm not going to cause a fuss because I heard the same thing in a different way. I also think the term "game interrupter" is a shorter way to say it. Finally, it should be our responsibility to understand current terms. Players do things and say things that they didn't do or say 10 years ago. In life old things are made new with different names. What would your suggestion be to combat this since you have brought up the fact that it isn't something new and revolutionary? I think the easiest thing to do would be to roll with it.

JR, now explain "lah me" to someone who is originally from the midwest but has lived in Alaska, Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada and Maryland.

"Game interrupter" is a shorter way to say "cheap foul"? Nah, it's just a different way. :) Why would I even think of combating it? Hell, I agree fully with the concept, and have done so for a helluva long time. I gotta say that it does help if you really know what a "game interrupter" really is though.

Tom, I pretty much agree with everything that you said above. I understand the use of current terms. I make it a point to try and do so. I don't think that anyone should ever stop learning, and I don't think that it really matters who you're learning from either- as long as what you're learning is new, germane and useful. I also know that the game is constantly changing and evolving also. What was an automatic foul 20 years ago may be acceptable now as incidental contact. What was a technical foul 20 years ago might not be now either. What kinda gets to me though is new officials who have gone to maybe one camp in their entire life, have never been close to calling a regular season high school varsity game let alone a college game of any type, don't really understand the <b>basic</b> rules and mechanics of our avocation, but solemnly regurgitate and preach some concept that they shouldn't even dream about using before they get some spit built up in their whistles. And a concept that they don't fully understand in the first place either; a concept that probably also isn't meant for the level of ball that they will be officiating anyway. NBA rules, theories, concepts and philosophies aren't germane to the FED game, believe it or not, and most of them don't fit in with NCAA philosophies either imo. And... then having a brand new official kinda intimate that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them has to be old and out-of-touch,well, that's simply called "trying to run before you know how to walk" imo.

End of long-winded rant.

Lah me = Oh My = WTF= you gotta be sh!tting me = anything that you want it to mean. :D Generic term I picked up off of the baseball board. Don't really know why I use it. Just seems appropriate to my weird sense of humor sometimes.

I have noticed that in the many different replies from many individuals, I have yet to hear anyone make reference to one criteria for making the call. The position you are in, in reference to making the call. Are you making the call from the T and C or are you making the call from the L position.
As I said in my original text I have made this call in different games at different times, but probally the most significent criteria to making the call is positioning and was I in transition.
So great ones give me your opinion.

JR, I agree with you 100% about experience. Going to a camp is great and needed but getting your fanny spanked during a real game is the only way to become poised under pressure. Many young officials do not realize that getting someplace too soon can make your stay at that destination short. Hopefully your statements will reach those in need. :D

The problem with the term "game interrupter" is that every foul, every violation and every time-out is a game interrupter. They stop the game. The problem is not game interrupters; the problem is unnecessary game interrupters. If you talk about avoiding game interrupters, there are people who will take that to mean, you want to pass on as much as possible simply to keep the game moving. And that's a bad way to officiate.


Aren't these comments kind of at odds with one another? You hate the constant "and one" play, b/c it's a game interrupter, yet you also hate that people don't understand that there should be an "and one" as long as the shooter has gathered the ball. If you teach people that, won't there be more of the "and one" plays you seem to hate?

And secondly, why exactly is an "and one" play a game interrupter? If the shooter is disadvantaged on the drive, isn't that supposed to be a whistle? I agree that officials at all levels award the "and one" when there sometimes is negligible disadvantage. But if the disadvantage is there, it's a call that needs to be made. Right?


You're not trying very hard. How about a punch?

Good advice, Tom, and not just for new officials. Politics, "knowing somebody", coming out of a dedicated training program, etc. may get you the initial opportunity. You still have to perform to <b>keep</b> that opportunity. And you have to keep on doing the job at a high level if you want to remain at a high level. The good officials never stop learning, evolving and adapting to the everchanging world imo.

If anybody doesn't wanna believe that, check with the one or two NBA officials that are let go every year because their performance didn't meet league expectations.

[/b]
The problem with the term "game interrupter" is that every foul, every violation and every time-out is a game interrupter. They stop the game. The problem is not game interrupters; the problem is unnecessary game interrupters. If you talk about avoiding game interrupters, there are people who will take that to mean, you want to pass on as much as possible simply to keep the game moving. And that's a bad way to officiate.

[/B][/QUOTE]Well said and an excellent point.

I think that Tom was talking about a "game interrupter" as being in the same vein as a "cheap foul" though.

Well said and an excellent point.

I think that Tom was talking about a "game interrupter" as being in the same vein as a "cheap foul" though. [/B][/QUOTE]I have noticed that in the many different replies from many individuals, I have yet to hear anyone make reference to one criteria for making the call. The position you are in, in reference to making the call. Are you making the call from the T and C or are you making the call from the L position.
As I said in my original text I have made this call in different games at different times, but probally the most significent criteria to making the call is positioning and was I in transition.
So great ones give me your opinion.

Chuck, I would have to disagree. We are talking about officials since that is what we are. We are there to make calls that need to be made. If we do that then we aren't interrupting the game as far as I'm concerned, we are doing our job. However, when we make a call that isn't needed or "cheap" then we interrupt the game when we shouldn't. That is the way the term has been presented to me. Keep in mind, I'm by no means the originator of this or almost any other term. I simply use the terms of those above me in whatever league/conference that may be at the time.

I guess I made some of my comments overlap and it didn't make good sense. There are too many "and one" plays. IMO, it is viewed by many to be the big play or a highlight type situation that requires some grand whistle and mechanic. If a player gets marginal contact and continues the shooting motion normally we can take a good look at the time, score and situation to possibly pass on this and let play continue. Notice I said marginal contact and the possibility that it can be passed on. I don't want to get painted into a corner and seem like I'm not going to call any plays like this. I had three of them in a game on Monday and all of them were BS in my opinion after the fact.

On a totally different note, there are times when a player has began their shooting motion and a foul is called on the floor. It doesn't matter if they go on to make the basket or not. The shooting motion starts when they start to gather the ball and so many times it should be two shots and it isn't called that. Again, this isn't some profound thing that I made up but the rules are the same for HS, college and the NBA. I heard this, to a lesser degree, a while ago on the west coast and I've heard it on the east coast too. If someone has something a different interpretation of the rule please chime in since we don't want to make a ruling like this without it being based on something in the rule book.

You got me on the punch thing even though I would consider that a fight and it has to be called all the time no matter where you are and see it on the court. Do you have any other situations where contact would always be a foul? This is pretty good.

Without trouble I can think of 2:

- An obvious illegal screen that frees the dribbler

- Crash into a stationary defender by an airborn offensive player off his pass.

Just last night I was in a conversation with an official that started a year before me. We discussed when A1 has gathered the ball, maybe gives a head fake and gets fouled. I explained that the player should get to go to the line and he disagreed. We then discussed when during a fastbreak situation, B1 gives A1 a handcheck around mid-court that it's best to bite you whistle as A1 will probably play thru it for his layup. You can still get that foul if he gets knocked off the ball. He again disagreed because, in his words "a foul is a foul". Then he asked to see my schedule and was upset that we work such different levels of games. All I could do is shrug my shoulders and explain to him again the importance of going to camps. To steal a term- Lah me!

What people see as an illegal screen is not always the same interpretation.

I do agree with the second one if there is no flop.

The problem with this discussion is this is all about interpretation. I have said many times over the years where you live might affect how you interpret what you read here and what you call. When I was in camp this past year I was criticized about not being more selective on a few calls. This particular camp was a HS camp, but I did the same at another camp and I was criticized for not passing on a shooting foul. The bottom line is there is a delicate balance to what should be called and what should not be called. And the philosophies I read here are not said that different from the HS level to the college level. Many of our HS players are some of the most recruited basketball players in the country. It is not expected that we call marginal contact especially at the Class AA level. That might be expected at the Class A level, but those kids are not D1 prospects. I read this board and many of the suggestions I read about I could never do and still work a certain caliber of game. I just have to agree with Tommy on this and his opinion on this.

We must remember we are talking about concepts, not absolutes.

Peace

In my post, I mentioned the one criteria: is the shooter unfairly disadvantaged? That's the criterion, as far as I know.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. How is your position the most significant criterion in making a call? What difference does it make if I'm in the C or L? If the guy gets hammered on the way to the hole, I've got a whistle. I understand that we need to have a good look at the play, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

If I see what to me is an obvious illegal screen then there's little room for interpretation. I'll call it always if it caused a clear advantage to the offense.

I'm just as sure that when YOU see what to YOU is an obvious illegal screen you recognize it. Whether you call it or not is your issue.

That all sounds wonderful, but what you might think is "obvious" others might pass on. I know I call more illegal screens than most officials I work with. So it is clear that everyone does not think all screens are so "obvious." I know some call screens with very slight contact. I on the other hand I require more severe contact than I will not just call a foul when the player being screen just gives up his position. I have even had kids that wanted me to call an illegal screen, but never kept going to their spot. Not all officials seem to think all contact on screens cause an advantage the same way.

Peace

You would disagree that every violation interrupts the game? I'm not sure how you could argue against that. . .

I agree. And I also understand that you are using "game interrupters" to mean "calls that don't need to be made".


We are doing our job by interrupting the game at an appropriate time. This is just semantics, ok? I completely understand your point. But my point is the term is misleading on the face of it. The problem is that officials with less experience might hear it and say, "Jeez, I better not call handchecks, b/c I'm just interrupting the game".


I completely understand that. I hope you will keep in mind that my comments are not directed at you personally in any way. I'm not saying you (or anybody) is a bad ref for using the terminology. I didn't mean it to come across that way at all. I'm just pointing out what I see as a problem with the terminology itself.


Nah, I got your point, I was just being persnickety. I actually agree with both your points. I think people call the foul "before the shot" too often. On the other side, sometimes it's hard to hold off on the foul call b/c you don't know if it's really going to affect the shot or not and if you wait, the play's over. So sometimes the "and one" whistle comes a little too early; but I can understand that to a certain degree. It's a hard thing to balance patience with a "too-late" whistle.

I can't think of any other ones right off the top of my head. Even the ones that Dan has listed, I can see passing on if the contact was slight. We see the pass/crash get no-called a lot (especially if the passer almost gets around the crash, so that the contact is on the defender's shoulder instead of chest), even at higher levels; and soft screens above the 3-point arc don't always give a big advantage. I can see why somebody might not call them.

Too bad this isn't what we were talking about. Describing specific contact and the result from that contact is different from saying that someone is in a fight. This was brought about because I said I can't picture contact from behind after a block always being a foul that should be called. You just mentioned two specific plays and the results. Not the same thing.

I have to edit because I feel another "comment" coming. If you said any screen with any amount of contact anywhere on the court should be called then I would say the same thing I said about the blocked shot.

[Edited by tomegun on Jul 20th, 2005 at 12:24 PM]

Tom, I'm not sure I understand what you're disagreeing about here. You simply asked if there are situations where contact is always a foul. I simply responded. I'm not sure whatintheheck fighting has to do with any of this. Any fighting, with or without contact, is always a foul.
I said what I said. I didn't say what you just wrote here.

Chuck,

Let's say you are rolling a ball back and forth on a table and it is my job to tell you when the ball rolls off the table and hits the floor.

If the ball rolls off the table and hits the floor I say "the ball fell off the table and hit the floor." Duh, that is what I'm there for.

So, the ball rolls off the table and right before it hits the floor you catch it and begin rolling it on the table again. If I say the same thing it would be interrupting you because although the ball rolled off the table you were able to recover and continue rolling the ball on the table.

Maybe a bad example, maybe not.


:D:D:D:D:D

Dan, you gave very specific plays and the impact they have on the game. The comments that were made about the blocked shot were general as far as contact is contact after a block and should be called a foul. I said I can't picture this always being a foul. That means sometimes it could/would be but there are situations where it wouldn't be. Chuck followed that by pointing out a thrown punch that is seen is always a foul. I agreed with him and asked him if he had any other situations like this. You answered with two specific situations that aren't like this. Everyone could be specific like you did and it would be correct. Do you understand now? I think you took the question I asked Chuck out of context.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun Quote: Do you have any other situations where contact would always be a foul? This is pretty good. I can't think of any other ones right off the top of my head. Even the ones that Dan has listed, I can see passing on if the contact was slight. We see the pass/crash get no-called a lot (especially if the passer almost gets around the crash, so that the contact is on the defender's shoulder instead of chest), even at higher levels; and soft screens above the 3-point arc don't always give a big advantage. I can see why somebody might not call them.

Hmmmm....I need to go back & reread what I wrote but I'm pretty sure I didn't say "soft screens above the 3-point arc [that] don't always give a big advantage" or a pass/crash where the contact is slight and the passer barely brushes the defender's shoulder as he almost gets around him.

What is it those old f@rts like to say? Oh yeah....lah me.

Dan, allow me to translate for you. Chuck is saying he can't think of any absolutes without being specific like you were. It's like if someone said all illegal actions on screens should be called. That would be similar to saying all punches thrown should be called.

OK Tom, just put me down for a C- on your midterm, I'll try & make it up on your final. :rolleyes:

I was just going to ignore you when you raise your hand! :D

Well, I should've read it more carefully the first time. I read your post and it translated in my head as "screen to free the dribbler and pass/crash where the defender goes down".

After going back, that's obviously not what you meant.

Now, poor alfreedog has been trying to get you guys' attention about the original question - from what position, L, C or T, do make this call? And I will be the one to finally address it.

Here it is: it depends.

Sorry, couldn't resist. But it is like any other foul call - whose primary is it? Was it a drive that originated from someone's primary? Who was in the best position to see the contact (or lack of contact)? If it was in transition, was the new L in position to see the area between the players, whether ahead of the play or coming in from behind, or could the C have a better look? So, I'm not sure there's a set answer, other than it depends on the actual play. Sorry I've been so helpful.

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".