Blocked shot with contact

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree with you. And it appears that Hank Nichols disagrees with you as well. Because he put out many bulletins over the years or had plays on the tape that told officials not to call fouls just because there was contact with the defender and shooter. The NCAA showed several tapes where officials called fouls on defenders and they were doing nothing.

I also never said, "free pass." That is not even terminology that I would even use. And contact on blocked shots is inevitable; you have to decide if that contact is illegal. I tend to pass on contact just because there is contact and consider it a foul in these situations.

And I also find it so funny that officials get so caught up in what is illegal when it comes to the shooter, but officials allow all kinds of illegal acts throughout the game, but if you touch the shooter that just goes too far. The airborne shooter rule is so sacred that officials allow all kinds of illegal contact on dribblers, rebounding and screens, but touch the shooter and we have to call something. I find that logic a little odd.

Peace

Rut:

It is real simple, if the only way that the defender can block the shot is to make contact (before, during, or after the block) with the shooter, then the contact is a foul.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rut:

It is real simple, if the only way that the defender can block the shot is to make contact (before, during, or after the block) with the shooter, then the contact is a foul.

MTD, Sr.

If you are saying all contact with a shooter is a foul, I would continue to disagree with you. Contact is apart of the game and if contact does not change what someone would do normally in their movement, it is not a foul. We are just going to have to disagree. And a block of all things rarely ever occurs without some or significant contact.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you are saying all contact with a shooter is a foul, I would continue to disagree with you. Contact is apart of the game and if contact does not change what someone would do normally in their movement, it is not a foul. We are just going to have to disagree. And a block of all things rarely ever occurs without some or significant contact.

Peace

Rut:

1) Congratulations on Blue's win yesterday.

2) An even better way to look at the play is forget about the block period. If the contact would be a foul if B1 was not trying to block the shot and only trying to defend the shooter, then the contact is a foul even if B1 does block the shot.

3) Go BUCKEYES!!

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rut:

1) Congratulations on Blue's win yesterday.

2) An even better way to look at the play is forget about the block period. If the contact would be a foul if B1 was not trying to block the shot and only trying to defend the shooter, then the contact is a foul even if B1 does block the shot.

3) Go BUCKEYES!!

MTD, Sr.

1) Thanks I guess.

2) Actually whether there is a block or not is not how I judge a foul. Players going to the basket are not going to get bailed out by me just because there was some contact. I feel the same way even if a block is not present. I am not calling a foul on a shooter that tries to do something they are not likely to complete if I have a serious choice between a foul or calling nothing. For example, a shooter going to the basket jumping between multiple defenders is not going to get a foul just because there is contact. The defenders are getting the benefit of the doubt on 50/50 plays.

3) I am wondering if you are going to finally beat an SEC team.

Peace