BasketballRef, no need to get personal. I didn't see the play you are referring to. I think several people are misunderstanding me. As I stated in my original posting, a foul should be called if the contact is violent whether the ball is blocked first or not. I am referring to plays where there contact is not severe and the ball is clearly blocked first. Maybe Andre felt the contact was too severe or maybe he just missed the call which can happen to anyone. I can assure you that Andre shares my thoughts on fouls after the ball is blocked as I have worked with him and been to his camps.

Eli,I re-read this whole thread,and I still don't think I know yet your position on the following.If a player makes a good block on an airborne shooter,then makes enough contact to knock him to the floor before he lands,do you pass on the call-i.e.no foul?This is assuming that the defender never attained a legal guarding position.Please note the knocking to the floor part.That was part of crew's original post.I realize that this is kind of a general question,so feel free to give a general answer.

Jurassic Ref, I will use my option to give a general answer. I can't tell you that I would call a foul simply because the player goes to the floor. I think these plays need to be called on a play by play basis, not with some all encompassing statement. If a player is on a fast break and some secondary defender comes over and blocks the shot and the offensive player is totally under control and gets knocked to the floor I would probably have a foul. If the offensive player goes into the lane out of control in a halfcourt set and a defender does not jump vertical but towards the offensive player and blocks the ball into the 5th row and then makes body contact which causes the offensive player to go to the floor I would probably not have a foul. Hope this helps you out with my opinion! You certainly don't have to believe in it. Every official calls the game a little different. Even NBA officials have differences in opinion on plays. We have a website that puts NBA plays up and the NBDL staff and NBA staff put what they believe should be called. Most of the plays put up are very tough 50-50 type plays. Some of the staff will vote for a foul on a play while others will not. Your philosophy might be to call these blocked shot plays a little tighter than me. That's fine, as long as we both agree that once the ball is blocked we will allow more than on a play with no blocked shot involved. That's my basic argument.

You know, that was my first thought!! :)

In the origional post I find nothing that would be defined under 4-27: Incidental Contact. Therefore we have a foul.

Mike

4-33.37.
1. contact shall not constitute a foul. when 10 players move rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur. incidental contact shall be contact with an opponent that is permitted and does not constitute a foul.
2. contact that is incidental to an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact that results when opponents are in equally facorable positions tp perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive.

i have no foul on the described gps.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Jurassic Ref, I will use my option to give a general answer. I can't tell you that I would call a foul simply because the player goes to the floor. I think these plays need to be called on a play by play basis, not with some all encompassing statement. If a player is on a fast break and some secondary defender comes over and blocks the shot and the offensive player is totally under control and gets knocked to the floor I would probably have a foul. [/B][/QUOTE]Eli.please let me give you 2 direct quotes by yourself from earlier in thus thread.Note that they both relate to Crew's original post about a shooter being knocked to the ground.
1)"in my opinion once the defender blocks the shot,secondary defender or not,contact after the shot should not be considered a foul unless extremely violent".
2)"
actually,I would not have a foul on this play even in a junior high game".
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from,but you're all over the place.You're giving us 2 completely different philosophies.Don't call a foul on a defender knocking a shooter to the floor unless it's extremely violent?Excuse me,but I think that those are called "flagrant fouls" and the NBA even has 'em.Do not try to tell me that I took the above quotes out of context either-they directly relate to the original posting.I think I'm gonna let this one go now.I've learned enough.

Jurassic Ref, I will use my option to give a general answer. I can't tell you that I would call a foul simply because the player goes to the floor. I think these plays need to be called on a play by play basis, not with some all encompassing statement. If a player is on a fast break and some secondary defender comes over and blocks the shot and the offensive player is totally under control and gets knocked to the floor I would probably have a foul. [/B][/QUOTE]Eli.please let me give you 2 direct quotes by yourself from earlier in thus thread.Note that they both relate to Crew's original post about a shooter being knocked to the ground.
1)"in my opinion once the defender blocks the shot,secondary defender or not,contact after the shot should not be considered a foul unless extremely violent".
2)"
actually,I would not have a foul on this play even in a junior high game".
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from,but you're all over the place.You're giving us 2 completely different philosophies.Don't call a foul on a defender knocking a shooter to the floor unless it's extremely violent?Excuse me,but I think that those are called "flagrant fouls" and the NBA even has 'em.Do not try to tell me that I took the above quotes out of context either-they directly relate to the original posting.I think I'm gonna let this one go now.I've learned enough. [/B][/QUOTE]
Jurassic Ref, I am sorry if you feel I have been all over the place on this one. I feel I have said the same thing over and over. If you feel the contact after the block is severe, violent, lots of contact, hard contact, whatever word usage you would like then call the foul. If you feel the contact is not severe, not violent, not lots of contact, not hard contact, then don't call the foul. All this is judgement by the official as to what is determined violent, severe, lots of contact, hard contact. The play crew mentioned to me seemed like he simply wanted an opinion on whether contact after the block should be called a foul. There was no mention of the contact being violent, severe, lots of contact, hard contact so I assumed it was not. So I was telling him that I would not call that play a foul even if in a junior high game. Of course, I have always stated that I would call a foul if I felt the contact was violent or severe etc. I never said "Don't call a foul against a defender knocking a shooter to the floor unless extremely violent." I am simply talking about blocked shot plays, not normal shooter fouls. I believe there is a big difference although it seems some people do not think there is a difference.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by eroe39
Eli, please note the :). Are you so defensive when you're on the floor too?


There was nothing severe about the contact. It was simply a foul. The ball was clearly out of Williams' hand, the ball was blcoked and there was contact between the Williams and Prince. It was the same play that's been described over and over again in this thread as a no-call.

If you and Andre have the same philosophy, it's not the same one that you've expressed over the past few days.

Eli.please let me give you 2 direct quotes by yourself from earlier in thus thread.Note that they both relate to Crew's original post about a shooter being knocked to the ground.
1)"in my opinion once the defender blocks the shot,secondary defender or not,contact after the shot should not be considered a foul unless extremely violent".
2)"
actually,I would not have a foul on this play even in a junior high game".
[/B][/QUOTEEli,you responded to Crew's original post by saying you would NEVER call a foul on a shooter who get's knocked to the floor,UNLESS there was extremely violent contact involved.NO other exceptions were mentioned by YOU!That's pretty definitive to me.Now you are saying that you MIGHT call a foul on a player who gets knocked to the floor,even though the contact is NOT extremely violent(see above,again).That was in response to a direct question I asked that specifically did NOT relate to extremely violent contact being included.Which answer do I believe?If your answers,as quoted above,aren't conflicting,I don't know what is!That's my point!I just can't believe that any official,no matter what level they are doing,would NEVER call a foul on an airborne shooter who is contacted by a defender and knocked down(violence not being a factor).That's EXACTLY what you and Crew stated.Well,good luck to both of you on that one.Nothing personal,but IMO you are both wrong.

4-1 We have an airborne shooter. This is not a situation where there is a loose ball. The players are not in an "equally favorable position to perform normal defensive or offensive movements". Player A is an airborne shooter and Player B2 has caused illegal contact.

Now, choosing to pass on the foul is one thing, but don't say that it is "incidental contact". You have decided not to call the foul. That's OK. However, IMHO, you are asking for more trouble by not making this call than if you make the call.

Don't make the call:
Coach A " Common, he got hammered."
To coach A "Yeah, but what a great block."

Make the call:
Coach B "What did he do?"
To coach B "He got him with the body coach."


Mike

So what if we have an airborne shooter. A1 still has to come down without making illegal contact with B1 who had a legal position on the floor before A1 became an airborne shooter. At the worst you will have a foul by A1 and at the worst you will have is nothing.

Mark, I respect your insight and your take on this is confusing me. Am I missing something? When I first read this post I thought it was a fairly routine play and a routine call. Perhaps we could have a PC foul on A if he were to come down into B1, but in the origional post A has beaten B1 and is on his way to the basket. B2 then sails in and has a nice block, but fouls A and knocks him to the floor. Even if B2 origionaly had LGP he has violated verticality by jumping INTO A.

If my understanding of the origional play is correct (and please let me know if I have missunderstood), then you either call the foul on B2 or don't, but we do have "something" because it is not incidental contact.

Mike

Mike, I re-read your post and I agree with you. I thought that original posting for this thread was the one where A1 is in front of B1 and they both go up for a rebound. Crew has to threads going that start with "gps" and since I became old and senile (I turned 50 this past Nov. 09th), it is difficult for me to keep all of these threads straight in my mind. Now, if I could only remember whether we still toss the ball for a jump ball after every field goal is scored I will be alright.

Guys -- I'm a relative newbie, but I recognize that Jurassic Ref got the final word on this one.

You are all missing this important point. REF THE DEFENSE> REF THE DEFENSE> REF THE DEFENSE. Has the defender established and maintained legal guarding position? Then it's a no-call. Whether the shooter is out of control or not is irrelevant. The secret to the whole thing is legal guarding position. Look in the Fed rule books under "verticality". Did the defender go straight up and keep his hands and arms straight up? Then no-call. If he jumped at an angle and the contact was caused by the defender moving away from his LEGAL GUARDING POSITION, then it's a block whether he gets the shot blocked or not, and whether the hit happens before or after the blocked shot.

I'm talking FED rules here. If someone else is using a different set of rules, please say so in your post.

Juulie, that's just it. These guys don't care whether the defender had legal guarding position or not. If the defender has been standing still for a week, they aren't going to call a PC because the guy is standing under the basket.

BTW, you're not that new! :)