Blocked shot with contact

[Back In The Saddle]

First of all, there is never an "exact same play."

A couple of years ago the 80/20 or 70/30 rule was being talked about a lot at the camps I was attending. If the defender gets 80% block and 20% contact (or 70/30, depending on the camp), then consider it a good block. But you're right. It's still pretty subjective.

[Rodical]

I try to see it as any other contact....advantage/disadvantage.....if there is slight contact that is incidental to the play...no foul...if the defender's momentum carries him into the shooter, so that it seems obvious that without contact he would not have been able to block that shot, then it's a foul. When in doubt, I blow the whistle, since these things can escalate quickly.

[Bearfanmike20]

I'm always a little fuzzy on it too. I look for hand on the ball first and formost, and go from there. I signal tip every time to show clean block.

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

I'm always a little fuzzy on it too. I look for hand on the ball first and formost, and go from there. I signal tip every time to show clean block.

Oh my...

I suggest you delete that post before the veterans get on you! Please don't tell me that you do that "over-the-back" signal too.

[JRutledge]

My philosophy has always been if it is clean up top, I have got nothing after that. Why penalize the defender for doing what they are supposed to do? This has worked for me for years and I know many official want to call a foul just because there is a little contact. If that is the case then they need to read 4-27.

Peace

[psycho_ref]

An airborne shooter must be protected.

Here is how I would call it:

Shooter is airborne, releases ball, ball is blocked, body contact occurs while shooter is still airborne - Foul.

Shooter is airborne, releases ball, ball is blocked, body contact occurs after shooter has landed - Contact is deemed incidental (in most cases, unless it is excessive, intentional, flagrant etc.).

Arm on arm contact after block has occured I would probably deem incidental.

Thoughts?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by psycho_ref

An airborne shooter must be protected.

Here is how I would call it:

Shooter is airborne, releases ball, ball is blocked, body contact occurs while shooter is still airborne - Foul.

Shooter is airborne, releases ball, ball is blocked, body contact occurs after shooter has landed - Contact is deemed incidental (in most cases, unless it is excessive, intentional, flagrant etc.).

Arm on arm contact after block has occured I would probably deem incidental.

Thoughts?

I do not see anywhere in the rules where it says an airborne shooter must be protected. If that is the case anytime an airborne shooter makes contact with anyone then it is a foul automatically. You do not have rules support for that any way it goes. And in order for you to have illegal contact, the defender had to do something wrong, not just contact and contact alone.

Peace

[psycho_ref]

We all know what the approved mechanics are. They are in the back of the rule back and illustrated.

However, I don't see anything wrong with communicating what has happened on the floor. And if that means using a non-approved signal, so be it.

We all used the kick ball signal before it was approved, because it is good communication. Some high school officials used the non-closely guarded signal before it was approved for high school, because it is good communication. And they were eventually implemented, because it is good communication. It was not necessary at the time, but i didnt see anything wrong with it. Some of us use the deflection signal to communicate that there was a deflection on an out of bounds call.

I know I will take heat for this, but it's ok I am used to it.

Ok, so some people will say, we were wrong then but we are right now that it is approved. Nonsense. These are not rules that effect the way the game is called. These are just additional methods of communicating. WE ARE PIONEERS AND HEROES. Happy holidays.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My philosophy has always been if it is clean up top, I have got nothing after that. Why penalize the defender for doing what they are supposed to do? This has worked for me for years and I know many official want to call a foul just because there is a little contact. If that is the case then they need to read 4-27.

Peace

In my opinion, some contact after a blocked shot can/should be considered incidental. This is not unlike considering contact created by a shooter to be incidental and not calling a PC foul when the shot is released and the shooter bumps the defender a little upon landing. However, at there is some level of contact in each situation that will still draw a whistle for a foul. It's all judgement...at some point, the contact will be sufficient to be worthy of a foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My philosophy has always been if it is clean up top, I have got nothing after that. Why penalize the defender for doing what they are supposed to do? This has worked for me for years and I know many official want to call a foul just because there is a little contact. If that is the case then they need to read 4-27.

Peace

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."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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."

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

[fullor30]

Mike...............nails on a chalkboard with the tipped stuff. Let me ask you, if a player drives to the basket and B1 swipes at it and gets nothing but air, yet A1 blows the cripple and the crowd screams foul do you signal how much B1 missed by?

Marcel Marceau might but officials don't need to do this.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Mike...............nails on a chalkboard with the tipped stuff. Let me ask you, if a player drives to the basket and B1 swipes at it and gets nothing but air, yet A1 blows the cripple and the crowd screams foul do you signal how much B1 missed by?

Marcel Marceau might but officials don't need to do this.

OH..... REALY??... I have been told by more then a few officials that this is the correct mechanic on a clean block...

OOPS!!!

[williebfree]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

OH..... REALY??... I have been told by more then a few officials that this is the correct mechanic on a clean block...

OOPS!!!

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