Blocked shot with contact

[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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Texas Aggie]

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?

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The main reason is that, in general, and for me, if I let it go, I don't hear much from coaches.......

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by psycho_ref

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.

...so were the monkeys in the spaceships...

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Last post

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My philosophy has always been if it is clean up top, I have got nothing after that.

First post


Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.