on fast break situation (1 0n 2) (a1 vs b1,b2) a1 drives the ball to the basket, beats b1 and goes for the lay in. at the same time b2 jumps from secondary coverage and blocks the ball and it sails near the center court. after the blocked shot and before the 2 come to the ground b2 makes body contact with a1 and a1 subsequently goes to the floor.

i have no foul on the play. what do you guys think about this play?

Crew, you're going to be the death of us all :eek:

This is a shooting foul by B2. A1 is still a shooter until he returns to the floor, at least in NF rules.

i almost always consider the contact after the blocked shot incidental.

The fact that B2 was able to block the shot does not get him off the hook for a foul. B2 must have control of his body during the entire play and if he cannot block the shot without making contact elsewhere on A1, then he is guilthy of a persoanl foul.

If it's truly incidental, it's incidental. If it's a foul, it's a foul irregardless of whether the ball was knocked away or not.

I GOT NUTTIN!

Since you got nuttin you must be a player and not an official.

Crew, you always seem to stir up controversy on this website. I think you love doing it. In my opinion once the defender blocks the shot, secondary defender or not, contact after the block should not be considered a foul unless extremely violent. The blocked shot play to me is where you really see a difference between officials. Too many officials call blocked shots fouls. If the defender gets ball first and then arm or body try to reward the great athletic block and let the crowd get excited without putting your stamp on the game. Don't be so pure, especially if the defender just contacts the arm after the ball. Sometimes I even pass when the defender slightly contacts the arm first and then gets a lot of ball. I go with the big picture, the block shot, instead of microdotting and saying he clipped his arm. If a player gets 80% ball and 20% arm at the same time I go with the block. Now, if he clips his arm and then does not get the ball a foul must be called as this slight contact has a big effect on a shooter. Ask any shooter. The defender should be penalized for not being able to jump high enough to get to the ball. Reward athletic players as basketball is an athletic game. However, don't call this arm clip play on a made layup or a dunk which would result in a cheap 3 point play. Have a patient whistle and only come in late if the layup or dunk is missed. Also, try not to call fouls when players get hit on the arm after the release as this hit has no effect on the shot. Shooters get hit on the arm a lot after the release especially on drives to the hole and layups. Please don't call this a foul. Now, if a player gets sent to the floor after the release with body contact and no blocked shot on the play a foul needs to be called. Boy, I am really getting off the subject. I love to ramble. I guess since I used to be a teacher. The key is not to be too pure. The same thing goes with steals or stips. If the arm is slightly contacted but the defender gets a lot of ball go with the strip. Also, if a player gets hit on the arm on a steal attempt and does not lose the ball or his rhythm is not upset go with a no call. Also, if a player gets hit on the arm on a shot and then runs over someone like a train then ignore the hit to the arm and go with the charge. Referee the whole play, the big picture. Everyone sees the train wreck. Don't come in with some microdot call such as a player getting hit on the arm first. I recognize that these philosophies are probably not applied in the high school games as much, but for those of you interested in the college game these philosophies are taught and for those of you interested in the pro game these philosophies are especially evident. Back to the play, your probably safe to call that a foul in a high school game but please don't call this a foul in a higher level game.

i would call this play the same on highschool and college level. you would not?

Actually, I would not have a foul on this play even in a junior high game. I'm just saying you would probably be safe even if you called a foul, meaning the coaches and players probably wouldn't protest the call too much because they are used to officials calling blocked shots fouls. In the pro game if you call that a foul, be prepared to follow up with a technical.

eli,
say you make this call and know you missed it how much rope would you give a player or coach? meaning do you allow them to vent even more than normal.
if i know i have missed a call the player or coach gets a little more leeway. i dont automatically stick it to him.

Crew, when I have a tough play or a play that I feel I might of missed I will definitely let the coach get away with a little more than normal. However, I'll still whack him if he gets too crazy. I'll let him vent and get it out of the way. But he can't harp on it the next four times down the floor. If I get a chance to be near him I will tell him "Coach, it was a tough play. I might have missed it" or "Coach, if it happend the way you say it did, I missed it. I did not see so and so foul him ect..." or simply "Coach, I missed that one." Also, in the last two minutes of a close game I will let the coach react a little more than normal since the game is getting tense and it is only human for his emotions to go up.

i totally agree.

Eli,I can see the points you are trying to make,but...!Unless I am reading the above wrong,you have an airborne shooter who is actually knocked to the floor.It sounds like it's not a case of contact on the arm,body,etc., or something that maybe doesn't basically affect the shot.That's judgement whether you call it,or pass.Where do you draw the line when the defender maybe makes a reasonable block,but the shooter then get's knocked down or put into the basketball support?The shooter is awful vulnerable when he is up there,and when he left his feet he had a clear path to the basket.Sometimes it doesn't take that much contact to put him flat on his back.That can be one of the most dangerous plays in basketball.Your thoughts?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 18th, 2001 at 05:14 AM]

Eli,

As I stated in an earlier posting, for a block shot to be a good block shot the defender must be in control of his body. If he cannot block the shot without making illegal contact elsewhere on the shooters body, the defender is guilty of a foul. Just because the defender blocked the shoot is no reason to excuse other illegal contact by the defender against the shooter.

I can understand the defender, coaches, and fans only concentrating on the blocked shot, but we as officials have to see the whole play. If we ignore the whole play, then we put the shooter at a disadvantage that was not intended by the rules.

The Rookie Chimes in...
 

I'm going with the old guys!.....Airborne shooter trumps a great block. I agree that basketball is an athletic sport and there is a degree of letting the players play to a certain limit. But you gotta protect the shooter.

Larks.....Old Refs never die....they just puke on shoes!

j r,
i am not eli but i will give my theory. if contact is made after the blocked shot and the contact is minimal(even if the shooter goes to floor), i would not call it. but if the contact is severe and the shooter is thrown into the stanchon, or a train wreck then a foul will be assessed. in the original post i tried to make the contact appear a little more than minimal. that is a situation i would not call foul. these are just my thoughts on the play.

Jurassic Ref, good point. Let me first reiterate that I believe the defender is allowed to make contact after the block, thus the contact does not affect the shot. However, if the defender goes through the body first and then blocks the ball well afterwards I would have a foul. On the play you described I would probably have a foul. It seems that the play you are talking about is when a player has a breakaway and then the defender comes from behind and blocks the shot first and then the body contact is severe and causes him to go to the floor and hit the support. If the contact is severe throw my theory out the window and call a foul. On the original play that crew brought up I was thinking more along the lines of an Allen Iverson trying to weave his way through Robert Horry and Shaq and Iverson is off balance putting up some crazy shot that Shaq deposits in the fifth row and then Shaq makes body contact with Iverson which sends Iverson to the floor only because he was off balance anyway. A foul here would not fit the game and would be a bail out call.

Dallas Shirly use to say: "Never say never and never say always." But just because a defender makes contact with the ball first does not mean that he can make contact with the ball handler after that. That is an absurd statement. I can see players saying: "You cannot call a foul on me, I made contact with the ball first; that allows me to play recklessly and out of control.

On the original play that crew brought up I was thinking more along the lines of an Allen Iverson trying to weave his way through Robert Horry and Shaq and Iverson is off balance putting up some crazy shot that Shaq deposits in the fifth row and then Shaq makes body contact with Iverson which sends Iverson to the floor only because he was off balance anyway. A foul here would not fit the game and would be a bail out call. [/QUOTE]

Eli...I'm glad you brought up Bail outs....as a rec player, I used to hate it when Refs would bail a guy out of his circus act jump shot after incidental contact....look...if you come flying in the lane out of control leaning left following a 360 spin move (much the way I dive into bed at night....BTW, my wife hates when I do that), in my mind you give up a small portion of "AIRBORNE SHOOTER". I cant stand a guy bailed out because he can long jump into the paint while doing a triple gainor....I'm 6'4", 275lbs....where the hell can I go or what can I do to defend....

Now case in point....incidental contact...no foul....hard contact while in mid air....foul....at least in my ROOKIE opinion.

Larks...Rookie FAT guys cant jump therefore we are ALWAYS in control!

When I call a block and that coach complains that the shooter was "out of control", I ask him if he meant "out of player control, by rule?" They have no idea what you mean (usually) and just shut up (usually).

If they reply with something like, "No, just out of control", I ask them which definition in the rulebook are they using to define control, because the only ones are the definitions of "player control" and "team control". That always gets them to shut up.

Just another example of being "in control" of the game.

Well put. I think you have to balance Player Control, Airborne Shooter and Incidental contact. I find these split second calls to be the hardest.

Ya know, come to think of it, my Rec team usually will get together after the triple gainor, 360 acrobat jump shot bail out and A) yell at the Refs for bailing him out...B) yell at each other for fouling and agree to hence forth just let him go b/c these are in reality low percentage shots....and C....walk back to the official who called the bail out....and PUKE ON HIS SHOES!

Larks....Rookies can Puke too ya know!

Mark, good point, never heard of Dallas Shirley though. I do agree that this should not be some all encompassing statement with no exceptions. As I stated before if the contact after the block is violent or severe I would have a foul. I'm just saying as a rule of thumb to not call fouls after the ball is initially blocked, of course, there are exceptions though.

I think its always important to realize that the team that fouled the off-balance, out-of-control shooter bailed him out, not the ref. Fouls are fouls. Just as if you try (and fail) to make an acrobatic catch on a ball that is going OOB off the other team - bad decision, violation on you when the ball goes OOB off you. Ref didn't bail them out - you did.

I agree with Mark in general that the airborn shooter rule applies, though I would think that the criteria for what is more than incidental contact goes up a bit when you hit ball cleanly before contacting shooter - and no, the rules don't read that way. But I also strongly feel that it isn't anything goes. If you block the shot and come through the arm hard, that's a foul. Block the shot and have a touch of the arm, no foul. Come through the arm to block the shot, needs to be a foul because that wasn't an athletic play, it's fouling someone in order to get to the ball.

But when the game is banging inside, if you call every touch of the arm or body a foul, we are going to be playing 3 on 3 by the end of the night!

Eli,that was my point.You can have a player try a block from an angle,not from behind,and just catch enough body to throw the shooter off-balance and put him down.I had that happen once and a broken hip resulted from minimal contact.You can also easily undercut a player on a rebound with minimal contact.Other times,you can have a fair amount of contact,without anything really happening that would affect the play or endanger the shooter.Every play is unique and has to be judged on it's own merit.I think that one of the problems is that if you pass on a player getting knocked down at one end,you then have to pass on a player getting knocked down at the other end--and keep passing on it.Even though the reasons the shooter went to the floor may be completely different,it's a hard sell to the other team if you now call it.I just don't think that you can make any hard and fast rule,unless you say"if I think it's a foul,it's a foul".

Your assignment for this week is to find out who Dallas Shirley and tell the group who he is and what he has contributed to the profession of basketball officiating.

Your assignment is to motivate us (ie tell us why we care).

BTW, I believe it's J. Dallas Shirley

[Edited by Dan_ref on Dec 18th, 2001 at 10:39 PM]

#8 UK 78, #1 Duke 77, with 16.7 seconds remaining.

Jason Williams drives the lane.

Clean block by Kentucky's Prince.

Lots of contact on the airborne shooter, Williams, down low.

Guess what?

Andre Patillo - "TWEET!"

Foul on Prince!

Imagine that!

So much for that theory!

You guys are so full of crap! :)

I agree with Mr. Denucci. Clear foul in my book. The blocked shot doesn't negate the contact down low. I would call this a blocking foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]


Your assignment for this week is to find out who Dallas Shirley and tell the group who he is and what he has contributed to the profession of basketball officiating. [/B][/QUOTE]I've heard of Chicago Shirley and I can tell you what she contributed to MLB players.Is that close enough?:D:

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! :)

No, in fact, tonight I felt just plain old. Legs stiff and lungs heavin....

Me, too.

you are correct.
how can a defensive player contest a shot standing under the rim. he can't. that is why it is taught not to call this a player control foul. it is no call or block. this is my opinion, you do not have to see it my way.

[/B][/QUOTE]

you are correct.
how can a defensive player contest a shot standing under the rim. he can't. that is why it is taught not to call this a player control foul. it is no call or block. this is my opinion, you do not have to see it my way. [/B][/QUOTE]Nope,I certainly don't see it your way.
1)What does a defensive player contesting a shot have to do with anything?We're talking about a defensive player taking a charge.You know-establish legal position before the shooter leaves his feet?Is there any reason the defensive player can't just stand there?Please cite any NCAA or Fed rule to support your ridiculous statement.
2)It may be taught in the NBA,but it sure as hell ain't taught in the NCAA or Fed.
I really don't think you understand the basic concepts of block/charge.

nc2a 4-4.8.7
b1 is standing standing directly under the basket before a1 jumps for the layup. the forward momentum of airborn shooter a1 causes a1 to run into b1. RULING: b1 is not in legal guarding position. blocking foul on b1. (women)

though this is for the womens game it is taught at mens camps as well. it is good practice to call this a defensive foul. though you do not have to call the game as i do.

Crew,the women's NC2A rule that you quoted is being disputed.That was a topic on other threads both here and on another board.This rule was a re-write of the WNBA rule,and it was put in by a non-official.That's the way I understand it,anyway.There are absolutely no rules in men's NCAA and Fed that can back up your original claim.On the contrary,they both list situations where a player control or charge foul is the correct call.I will also state that the concept you put forth is not taught at any camp for NCAA or Fed officials,because it is completely contrary to the written rules.It is an absolutely idiotic practice to call this a defensive foul at any level under the NBA.That is my opinion!You are right though,in that you can call it anyway YOU want.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 23rd, 2001 at 02:31 PM]

j.r.
the nc2a camps that i have attended, the clinicians(high ranking nc2a officials) have stated that this is good practice.
1. see the defender and locate where his feet are
2. see the play(start, middle, end) and let it develop.
3. judgement-if the defender is under the basket. no call or block. they also inform us to observe the outcome of the play.
a. is this a train wreck and the offensive misses the shot? yes-foul.
b. does the offensive player miss the shot? yes-foul.
c. does the offensive player make the shot? yes-pass on it.
d. is it a train wreck and the defender makes the shot? yes-foul.

yes, this is taught at nc2a camps.

Please cite any NCAA or Fed rule to support your ridiculous statement.
2)It may be taught in the NBA,but it sure as hell ain't taught in the NCAA or Fed.
I really don't think you understand the basic concepts of block/charge. [/B][/QUOTE]

j.r.,
you asked me to recite an nc2a rule, i did. now you come back with "that rule is being disputed" and "it is an absolutely idiotic practice to call this a defensive foul on any level under nba." do you always try to insult your fellow officials?

[/B][/QUOTE]

j.r.,
you asked me to recite an nc2a rule, i did. now you come back with "that rule is being disputed" and "it is an absolutely idiotic practice to call this a defensive foul on any level under nba." do you always try to insult your fellow officials? [/B][/QUOTE]Nope,I never insult my fellow officials.

How about an actual NCAA rule which is applied for both men's and women's ball, not just a freakish women's interpretation?

mark, j.r.,
unbelievable! you asked for a rule. i gave it and the case book play. now it is freakish, and idiotic. what else would you like?

That's true! You've never insulted me.

Well then again, there was this one time when you called me Todd! :mad:

:D

Same thing I'd like,Crew.Please cite an NCAA mens or Fed rule to support your original Statement.

That's true! You've never insulted me.

Well then again, there was this one time when you called me Todd! :mad:

:D [/B][/QUOTE]Hey,at least nobody calls you "raptor breath".:D:

Try 4-8-1, A.R. 6.

States clearly for men's ball that this play is a PC charge foul!!!

nc2a 4-4.8.7
b1 is standing standing directly under the basket before a1 jumps for the layup. the forward momentum of airborn shooter a1 causes a1 to run into b1. RULING: b1 is not in legal guarding position. blocking foul on b1. (women)

though this is for the womens game it is taught at mens camps as well. it is good practice to call this a defensive foul. though you do not have to call the game as i do.

In reply to the original post: Isn't this why we refs are told to "stay with the shooter" so we can make sure they don't get fouled after the ball is released?
I have a foul.

Z

Absolutely unbelievable!Good night,Crew.

Yes, but you also have to stay with the defense to make sure the defender doesn't foul the shooter from under the basket. If the defender does, it's a false multiple foul, and you go to the alternating-posession arrow on the scoreboard, not at the table.

You, my friend, are a newbie.

But you're a smart newbie! ;)

Welcome aboard!

Mark, zebraman is new. When you post, tongue in cheek, you may want to add a :). ;)

Not withstanding Barb Jacob's riduculus inclusion of an NBA/WNBA interpretation in the NCAA Women's Rules. The NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules are quite clear. Any player is entitled to any spot on the court provided the player has legally secured that position. Therefore if B1 is standing under the basketball prior to A1 going airborne and A1 makes contact with B1 before returning to the floor then A1 is guilty of a charging foul under NFHS rules and maybe under NCAA Men's Rules.

NFHS: If A1 is an airborne shooter, then the foul is a player control foul even if the contact is after the ball has become dead. If A1 is an airborne player, the foul is a common foul (but is not a player control foul) as long as the contact occurs while the ball is live; if the ball is dead the contact is considered incidental unless the official judges it to be intentional or flagrant and in either case it would be a technical foul.

NCAA Men's: If A1 is in control of the ball when contact with B1 occurs, the foul is a player control foul by A1. If A1 is not in control of the ball and the ball is live when A1 makes contact with B1, the foul is a common foul (but is not a player control foul); if the ball is dead the contact is considered incidental unless the official judges it to be intentional or flagrant and in either case it would be a technical foul.

The real problem with this play (B1 is legally positioned under the basket), is that camp instructors and telling officials to either pass on the contact or call a blocking foul on B1. These instructors have absolutely no authority to tell officials to either disregard the rules of the game or to delibertely charge the wrong player with the foul. This nonsense has got to stop. It is absolutely disgusting that these instructors would tell officials to do such things.

this is why you guy's arent instructors for the college game

As I have said before, my opinion on this matter is shared by many top flight officials at the high school and college level.

mark,
your profile says womens college since 1974. do you not officiate the womens game as specified by barb jacobs?

[/B][/QUOTE]


As I have said before, my opinion on this matter is shared by many top flight officials at the high school and college level. [/B][/QUOTE]Your opinion is shared by a lot of us low-flight officials,too.:D:Might as well give it up,Mark.You ain't gonna change his mind.Quoting rules to him,while he can't quote any back,seems to be completely irrelevant in these discussions.From now on,I think I'm gonna follow TH's lead and not reply directly anymore to his posts.Should save me a lot of aggravation and frustration.

if i want to officiate in these conferences i must officiate according to their instruction. though i agree with their philosophy, i understand your point of view. it is in the book.(men)
for the womens game i do not see the argument

Quoting rules to him,while he can't quote any back[/B][/QUOTE]

this is a lie! i have quote rules, though you disregard it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crew

Quote:

if i want to officiate in these conferences i must officiate according to their instruction.

The question is, where DO you officiate? Is your Fed assignor aware of your disagreement with the block/charge rule? Do Fed coaches complain about you, but your assignor backs you up? What is your actual experience, as opposed to your philosophy?

I thought I read somewhere that you were fairly high up in the college ranks. Well, if your assignors there tell you to call this like the NBA, then, yes you should. But why are you telling us in the NFHS associations to call it like you do? Why not say, different levels require different interpretations and that's the way it should be, instead of insisting that your interpretation is the ONE BEST WAY for every game, every level, every situation?

To others who are responding: It may be hopeless to attempt to change tony's (small t) mind, but the responses are still important, since other newbies, and learners need to hear all the different points of view, so that they can find firm ground for their own philosophical decisions.

[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 25th, 2001 at 03:36 AM]

Good post,Juulie!Btw,you can add me in with the newbies and the learners--I've learned things from newbies and learners too(still am),and think that they have a fresh perspective on things that can really offer a lot.As for Crew,I'm with Big Tony.How can you discuss something with someone that insists he's 100% right,but can never find a written rule that will back his position?Philosophies are different at the various levels,but all the different levels do have rules that you should,at least,use as a guideline.Nope,not gonna play in his sandbox anymore.That's not personal,it's philosophical.
Here's hoping everyone has a great holiday.

]

The question is, where DO you officiate?
florida
Is your Fed assignor aware of your disagreement with the block/charge rule?
yes
Do Fed coaches complain about you,
no, they love to see the college officials assigned to their games.
but your assignor backs you up?
he would if there was controversy, he is nc2a as well.
What is your actual experience, as opposed to your philosophy?
D1, D2, NAIA, JUCO, Florida highschool. mt philosophy comes from higher ranking nc2a and pro officials

[QUOTE]But why are you telling us in the NFHS associations to call it like you do?[QUOTE]
i am not, i just give my point of view, you can take it or leave it. it does not matter to me.

Quote:

Why not say, different levels require different interpretations and that's the way it should be, instead of insisting that your interpretation is the ONE BEST WAY for every game, every level, every situation?

i just give my opinion.

rainmaker
I agree, and this is one of the unfortunate things about the nature the discussion can take on these boards. I sometimes reply knowing that I have no prayer of changing the mind of the person to whom I am responding, but I know that there are new members every week and I feel that both sides of the discussion need to be represented. (one recent painful thread comes to mind!!) Furthermore, I can see the points made when all of you respond to a particularly stubborn individual (regardless of who that person might be on a given thread) and you make points based on rules, reason, cases, etc.

I think it is a pain to keep doing this at times, but hopefully somebody will continue to make the case-based, rule-based arguments so that people don't show up to learn and learn the wrong things, or just hear one side of the story. Everyone must draw their own conclusions and call their own game, but those who come here to learn the game should see all sides of an issue and be allowed to decide for themselves.

[/QUOTE]As for Crew,I'm with Big Tony.How can you discuss something with someone that insists he's 100% right,but can never find a written rule that will back his position?
[/B][/QUOTE]
i never said i was 100% correct on anything.

Quote:

Philosophies are different at the various levels,but all the different levels do have rules that you should,at least,use as a guideline.

i agree.

I think that we should all stop using the word philosophy when discussing incidental contact. In fact philosophy should not be attached to Oswald Tower's writings on incidental contact. Contrary to popular belief, officials are not supposed to have a philosophy concerning incidental contact. The rules define exactly what is incidental contact. NFHS R4-S27 and NCAA R4-S37 define incidental contact. Both sections are identical definitions; there are five sections in NFHS and six in NCAA (NFHS A4 is divided into NCAA A4 and A5). The important articles for the posted play are A3 (NFHS and NCAA) and A5 (NFHS and A6/NCAA).


NFHS R4-S27: Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.

A3: Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

A5 (A6/NCAA): If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.


Lets look at the originally posted play: A1 drives past B1 and becomes an airborne shooter. B2 jumps into the air and blocks A1’s shot while A1 is still airborne. After blocking A1’s shot and while A1 is still airborne (an airborne shooter in this play), B2 makes contact with A1 and A1 lands on the floor (not on his feet).

Before going any farther, the NFHS/NCAA definitions of guarding and screening will also be used in determining the correct ruling for the posted play.

The following questions have to be answered before the ruling can be made:

Question 1: Had B2 secured a legal position on the floor before A1 became an airborne player?

If the answer to Question (1) is yes, then the next question is:

Question 2: Did B2 obtain (NFHS)/establish (NCAA) a legal guarding position against
A1?

If the answer to Question (2) is yes, then any contact between A1 and B2 is either incidental or a foul by A1 against B2.

If the answer to Question (2) is no, then the next question is:

Question 3: Did B2 jump straight up within his own space (principle of verticality)?

If the answer to Question (3) is yes, then any contact between A1 and B2 is either incidental or a foul by A1 against B2.

If the answer to Question (3) is no, then any contact between A1 and B2 is not incidental and is a foul by B2 against A1.

If the answer to Question (1) is no, then any contact between A1 and B2 is not incidental and is a foul by B2 against A1.


As one can see there is nothing difficult about making a ruling for the posted play. If the answer to Question (1) is no, it is because B2 has not fulfilled the requirements of NFHS R4-S27-A5 (NCAA R4-37-A6).


Now lets look at the original posting:

On a fast break situation (1 on 2) (a1 vs b1,b2) a1 drives the ball to the basket, beats b1 and goes for the lay in. At the same time b2 jumps from secondary coverage and blocks the ball and it sails near the center court. After the blocked shot and before the a2 comes to the ground b2 makes body contact with a1 and a1 subsequently goes to the floor.


To be honest, the original posting does not give a definite answer to Question (1), and without an answer (yay or nay) one cannot make a definite ruling on the play from a rules interpreters position. But the question that has been raised through the thread is whether B2 can or cannot legally make contact with A1 while blocking A1’s field goal attempt? And we can see that the question is but yes and no. But the important thing to remember is that the rules tell us what is a foul, not an official’s (or coach’s, player’s, or some other official’s, or conference assigner’s) personal philosophy as to what is incidental contact and what is a foul.

I have had entire games that took less time than it did to read Mark's last post ;)

Big,you just broke me up laughing,just sitting here.Great comment!Btw,I read it too,and I think Mark just agreed with everybody that ever posted on this thread,no matter what tack they took.Is that the impression you got?Must be the holiday spirit.:D:
Love is in the air...hum..hum..love is in the air-

While we may not need a "philosophy" on incidental contact, the covering official must put some thought into the call otherwise you have a circular definition:

Incidental contact is contact which is not considered a foul.

A personal foul is contact that is not considered incidental.


See where we're going here?

:D

;)

Mark (isn't that a great name):

I agree with you as far as "thought" goes but the definition of incidental contact coupled with the definition of what is a personal foul does give us a circular definition. Basketball is a non-contact sport, meaning that there is going to be contact that is incidental to the playing of the game, but contact should not be used gain an advantage that the rules do not allow.

Hence your description of a circular definition.

In a court of law the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent or innocent). The definition of guilty is not innocent and the definition of innocent is not guilty. A circular definition if I ever saw one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. I agree with you as far as "thought" goes but the definition of incidental contact coupled with the definition of what is a personal foul does give us a circular definition. Basketball is a non-contact sport, meaning that there is going to be contact that is incidental to the playing of the game, but contact should not be used gain an advantage that the rules do not allow. Hence your description of a circular definition. In a court of law the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent or innocent). The definition of guilty is not innocent and the definition of innocent is not guilty. A circular definition if I ever saw one.

there is judgement involved. i agree

Actually, in a criminal proceeding, the jury (or judge) decides if the state (or other governing authority) has proven its case, not if the defendent did the crime or not.

In a civil case, the jury (or judge) decides which side has proven its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

At least, that's what I learned by watching Perry Mason reruns. They've been on every weekday at noon here in Portland for about 30 years.

Of course, on the court, I am judge, jury and executioner and there are no appeals. Like Judge Roy Bean, I am the law.

So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? :confused:

Yes,he is!:D:

DeNucci for Congress? He'd be perfect - he doesn't disagree with anyone!

I do not know if circular definition is the best way to describe what what we are saying.

When we flip a coin before the start of a soccer game there are only two outcomes (actually three: I actually had the coin land on its edge this summer before the start of an AAU tournament baseball game): H(eads) or T(ails). When the flipped coin lands H up that means T was down and vice versus. This is no different than the logic we used to describe incidental contact and illegal contact.

At last... I NOW UNDERSTAND!!!

He is a frigging soccer official. No wonder I am so confused about what he is saying all the time. :D

:)

I am first and always a basketball official. Soccer is just a diversion and I can assure you that the guys (with some rare exceptions) that only officiate soccer and no other sport do not have a clue as to what officiating sports is all about.

Soccer? Isn't that the sport for kids who can't use their hands?

Hey! Easy on this soccer stuff, my son plays soccer. Oh yeah, it's because he is not very good in basketball.