Wouldn't it be cleaner for you "Imperials" to say 1392/348 instead of 80/20? :D

To remain in the argument, also in FIBA (at least in Italy) a slight contact after the block should be ignored as incidental. For example, many times the contact is caused by the movement of the shooter after the block.

Definitely no tip signal.

Ciao

"Foul Tip Signal"
 

Not in the BASKETBALL officials manual.... Prudent use of it is advised, for issues of ball tipped out of bounds, last touched in the front court by the defender, etc....

I have worked with partners who are "Foul tip fanatics." Unfortunately, I had an incident where partner (reaching out of his primary) giving his "almighty signal" as the "shot blocker's" momentum carried him solidly into the shooter.

It is ugly when you make the the correct call (in your primary), on a game-deciding, buzzer-beating shot ---- "overruling" your "clean block" foul tip fanatic partner's signal.

Bottom Line:
Your choice to not call a foul should imply you viewed it as a clean block.

ok.
 

Excuse me for not being clear enough. "Illegal contact by the defender" is the term I should have used. I thought that would have been assumed. Clear enough?

Illegal contact by a defender on an airborne shooter, must be called.

I like using the guidance that if you think the block would not have been possible without the somewhat substantial contact, call it a foul. If the player is on the floor, you can also call a good block followed by a foul (if the shot is missed).

On the tipped shot issue - it looks silly, first off. Secondly, if you don't blow the whistle, that's a pretty good signal that no foul occured. Thirdly, you really look silly if you signal a blocked shot and your partner blows a whistle for a foul (and how many times have we seen that!). Fourthly, it's not communicating anything that hasn't been seen by everyone. Fifthly, it's usually seen done by rookies so if you do it, you look like a rookie.

Really. It'll bite you in the azz one day.

Read 4-27-5: If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

This happens a lot. A1 is ahead of the pack, moving slowly, or perhaps even standing still. He shoots a layup. B1 sprints into the picture and swats the ball into the rafters, well after the release. BUT, what may seem like a long time afterward, he crashes into A1 and plants him. The crowd and bench go wild, because it was obviously "clean up top." Perhaps they did not even see the contact because they followed the flight of the ball. I believe the expression is "protect the shooter," or "stay with the shooter."

PLEASE REMOVE THIS (I'M NOT EVEN CALLING IT A MECHANIC) OUT OF YOUR GAME IMMEDIATELY!!!!

I had this play last week. A1 is driving to the basket for a layup, B1 jumps into A1 then blocks the shot cleanly. I saw that the contact before the shot block was a gained advantage for B1 to block the shot. The coach said he got all ball. I agreed and told him that I had substantial body contact before the block and if I have a block first and contact after we play on.

Don't know if oops is directed at me or you, but I'm sure you've read the consensus here. I put 'tipping' in the same category as backpedaling.

The day will be sooner than you think.

I am not a "if it's not in the rulebook don't use it" camp, but this particular signal will cause you a big problem. How? You signal a tip (clean block) and I come in with a foul. Signal nothing here, since nothing happened.

The only time I'll use a tip signal is if I'm the C and see a tip into the backcourt -- I'll use that signal to let my partner know not to call a backcourt violation.

Last night I was watching a humdinger of a JV crew (the one guy stood 3 feet in the backcourt 2 feet from the sideline as the trail and DID NOT MOVE from there) and on one play he signaled a "tip" from there when the ball was down on the opposite side block. Not surprised since there were 4 eyes on the ball at all times the entire time we watched. That's when I turned to my partner, said "I've seen enough," and went and got dressed.

The difference is these other mechanics won't bite you in the backside. The kick mechanic is done after the whistle, and communicates an actual violation (as opposed to the "over-the-back" and "reach" "signals.") The 'not closely guarded' signal is done only by the official with primary ball responsibility, his partners aren't going to come in with a 5 second call while his arms are spread.

Think of how many times you see something different than your partner. Lead sometimes gets straightlined and can't see the body push from behind, or he misses the fact that the defender slapped the elbow rather than the ball on the shot block. Lead starts signaling "foul tip," and trail comes in hard with the foul. You both lose credibility with this.

I do not believe in "protecting the shooter." I do believe in knowing how the shooter got to the floor. Because I feel a lot of officials call a foul on a bigger player just because there bigger rather than something illegal taking place. In general I cannot see how someone blocks a shot cleanly and they can be called for a foul. Even some clean blocks might result in the shooter going to the floor hard. And for the record I am not talking about a defender the clearly bumps a shooter to block the shoot. That is a foul if the defender was not vertical or in legal guarding position and the contact created a clear advantage to the defender. My main point is that many shooters are out of control and any contact should not be called just because the shooter is already in a bad position or a position they put themselves in.

Peace

I don't really like this idea because in my view, the defender is gaining way too much of an advantage with the contact. However, unless the shooter hits the floor (legitimately) or something like that, I call it pretty much the way Rut has laid it out here. The main reason is that, in general, and for me, if I let it go, I don't hear much from coaches, but if I call it, at best, I'm asked for clarification as to what I called (or saw) from the coach who's player I called the foul on. This has come about over a long period of time with coaches at several levels, so I've interpreted this to mean that the coaches don't have a problem with this being called a clean block and nothing else. Honestly, a lot of times, all they see is the block.

Somewhat like roughing the passer in football. I've gotten to where if I even think about it, I flag it, since I've almost never gotten grief from coaches on this -- even late in the game on drive saving calls.

Sometimes this thinking works, and sometimes it doesn't. Just keep in mind that there's no magic formula to officiating. And this is a good discussion in my view because I certainly respect the other view.

Last post



First post


Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

Every time anybody looks at the division line, you can call backcourt and not hear much from the coaches. This is not a good criteria for making or not making a call.