The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Blocked shot with contact (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/40553-blocked-shot-contact.html)

ABO77 Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:17pm
Blocked shot with contact
 
I have a tough time consistantly calling a player jumping and blocking a try and then make some contact after the block. Somtimes I have a foul...sometimes I dont. It seems everybody has their own opinion on this type of call/no call. I hear some officials treat it kinda like a blocked punt in football...some contact afterwards ok. But the next official will have a foul on the same exact play:confused: ...comments.

Back In The Saddle Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:23pm
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 Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:29pm
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.

Mark Padgett Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
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.
Do you know how tough that would be for those FEEBLE guys to try and figure that out in metric? :eek:

Back In The Saddle Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Do you know how tough that would be for those FEEBLE guys to try and figure that out in metric? :eek:
That's why it's never caught on in the rest of the world. :D

Bearfanmike20 Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:32pm
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.

Ch1town Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:35pm
Quote:
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 Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:44pm
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

fullor30 Fri Dec 21, 2007 04:56pm
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 Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:01pm
Quote:
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!!!

Bearfanmike20 Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town
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.
Gosh no... no over the back or reach around.

My partner last night.. with the reaching around signal... looked like he just wanted to give somebody a hug.

psycho_ref Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:05pm
Airborne or not
 
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 Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:14pm
Quote:
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

Camron Rust Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:14pm
Quote:
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.

psycho_ref Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:18pm
Approved mechanics.
 
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.

eg-italy Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Do you know how tough that would be for those FEEBLE guys to try and figure that out in metric? :eek:
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

williebfree Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:20pm
"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.

psycho_ref Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:24pm
ok.
 
Quote:
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.

wisref2 Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:28pm
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.

Jurassic Referee Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:45pm
Quote:
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.

just another ref Fri Dec 21, 2007 05:46pm
Quote:
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."

JoeTheRef Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20
I signal tip every time to show clean block.
PLEASE REMOVE THIS (I'M NOT EVEN CALLING IT A MECHANIC) OUT OF YOUR GAME IMMEDIATELY!!!!

JoeTheRef Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:08pm
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.

fullor30 Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:48pm
Quote:
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!!!
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.

Rich Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Really. It'll bite you in the azz one day.
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.

Adam Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:56pm
Quote:
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.

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:09am
Quote:
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

Texas Aggie Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36am
Quote:
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 Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:37am
Quote:
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


Quote:
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.

just another ref Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:42am
Quote:
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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Sat Dec 22, 2007 01:16am
1) If the defender cannot make the block without making illegal contact (whether the contact is before or after the block) with the shooter, the defender has commited a foul. PERIOD!

2) The foul tip signal should NEVER be used by a basketball official unless he is the plate umpire in a baseball game or a softball game.

MTD, Sr.

Jurassic Referee Sat Dec 22, 2007 02:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN
1)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.

2) Signal nothing here, since nothing happened.
1) I've been in the middle of that one.

2) You are wise beyond your years.

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 04:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
Last post

First post


Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.
Do not take part of the comment, take the entire statement. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
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

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 04:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
1) If the defender cannot make the block without making contact (whether the contact is before or after the block) with the shooter, the defender has commited a foul. PERIOD!
I completely disagree with that statement. For one basketball is always going to have contact. This would be like expecting there to be no contact on a screen and most of the time legal or illegal screens have some kind of contact. You do not call a foul on the screener just because there is contact. You make a call when illegal contact occurs. The same is on a block. And I have hardly ever seen many blocks where no contact takes place. And I will never call the game that way unless the rule changes drastically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
2) The foul tip signal should NEVER be used by a basketball official unless he is the plate umpire in a baseball game or a softball game.

MTD, Sr.
I disagree with this as well. It should not be used on every play, but to day it should not be used is not completely correct. Maybe that is how things are done where you live, but I would not use the word ‘never.’

Peace

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I completely disagree with that statement. For one basketball is always going to have contact. This would be like expecting there to be no contact on a screen and most of the time legal or illegal screens have some kind of contact. You do not call a foul on the screener just because there is contact. You make a call when illegal contact occurs. The same is on a block. And I have hardly ever seen many blocks where no contact takes place. And I will never call the game that way unless the rule changes drastically.



I disagree with this as well. It should not be used on every play, but to day it should not be used is not completely correct. Maybe that is how things are done where you live, but I would not use the word ‘never.’

Peace

Rut:

First point: I edited my post to say illegal contact. It was late at night when I made my post. I think that "illegal" is the key word here.

Second point: I stand by my statement. An official looks stupid and invariably while he is making his foul tip signal something that is really illegal happens and he is way late (there is nothing inherently wrong in making a call that is late) in making the call, or misses it entirely.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

MTD, Sr.

ChrisSportsFan Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:36am
Quote:
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.
Bad move IMO, what if a partner whistles foul? Now you got one coach happy and the other wants to know why he called a foul when you had a clean block. If it ain't a foul, don't blow you whistle...that's how they know.

ChrisSportsFan Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I completely disagree with that statement. For one basketball is always going to have contact. This would be like expecting there to be no contact on a screen and most of the time legal or illegal screens have some kind of contact. You do not call a foul on the screener just because there is contact. You make a call when illegal contact occurs. The same is on a block. And I have hardly ever seen many blocks where no contact takes place. And I will never call the game that way unless the rule changes drastically.



I disagree with this as well. It should not be used on every play, but to day it should not be used is not completely correct. Maybe that is how things are done where you live, but I would not use the word ‘never.’

Peace
Be careful, always and never are a LONG time.

Really? Seriously? Come on!!

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisSportsFan
Be careful, always and never are a LONG time.

Really? Seriously? Come on!!
Yes seriously. I do not call body contact on blocked shots that are completely clean. Sorry I do not call the game that way. The defender would have to do something else intentional or flagrant to get contact. Once again, the rules read that "contact can be severe and not be a foul."

Peace

just another ref Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Yes seriously. I do not call body contact on blocked shots that are completely clean. Sorry I do not call the game that way. The defender would have to do something else intentional or flagrant to get contact. Once again, the rules read that "contact can be severe and not be a foul."

Peace

If there was body contact, it wasn't completely clean. The "contact can be severe and not be a foul" refers to opponents trying to reach a loose ball or opponents in equally favorable positions to perform defensive or offensive movements. A shot block does not fit into this description.

Jurassic Referee Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Once again, the rules read that "contact can be severe and not be a foul."
And case book play 4-19-3 says that it can be a foul, even if it was "all ball" followed by the contact. Not only that, it can be an intentional foul.

Imo, you can't make a hard and fast rule on it, eother saying that it is <b>always</b> a foul or saying that it is <b>never</b> a foul. You call each play by it's circumstances.

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 04:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
And case book play 4-19-3 says that it can be a foul, even if it was "all ball" followed by the contact. Not only that, it can be an intentional foul.

Imo, you can't make a hard and fast rule on it, eother saying that it is <b>always</b> a foul or saying that it is <b>never</b> a foul. You call each play by it's circumstances.
We will just have to disagree. That might work well on a girl's game that does not work very well on a boy's game in my opinion.

Peace

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 04:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
If there was body contact, it wasn't completely clean. The "contact can be severe and not be a foul" refers to opponents trying to reach a loose ball or opponents in equally favorable positions to perform defensive or offensive movements. A shot block does not fit into this description.
If you were going to have body contact anyway (and all contact is not a foul), then I will disagree.

If you want to call any little contact with a shooter that is fine with me. I am telling my philosophy that has worked for years. I have hardly ever had any complaints and when I have had a complaint and a quick response, they understood and got over it. Actually I here much more complaining on blocked shots which involved contact with the body (or arm or head) because all the coach saw was the block above.

And I look at it this way. If I was doing something completely out of the ordinary, I would not be asked back to work for the same people over and over again. And if someone is doing it better, they will find them to work games. And I have never had a major problem with this philosophy or working with other officials that do not share a similar philosophy.

Peace

Jurassic Referee Sat Dec 22, 2007 07:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
We will just have to disagree. That might work well on a girl's game that does not work very well on a boy's game in my opinion.
I saw about 5 calls like that in various NCAA Mens games today. Fouls called for heavy contact <b>after</b> a clean block. I guess it works on girls games and NCAA mens games, but not in <b>your</b> boys games.:)

fullor30 Sat Dec 22, 2007 07:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
If you were going to have body contact anyway (and all contact is not a foul), then I will disagree.

If you want to call any little contact with a shooter that is fine with me. I am telling my philosophy that has worked for years. I have hardly ever had any complaints and when I have had a complaint and a quick response, they understood and got over it. Actually I here much more complaining on blocked shots which involved contact with the body (or arm or head) because all the coach saw was the block above.

And I look at it this way. If I was doing something completely out of the ordinary, I would not be asked back to work for the same people over and over again. And if someone is doing it better, they will find them to work games. And I have never had a major problem with this philosophy or working with other officials that do not share a similar philosophy.

Peace

"And if someone is doing it better, they will find them to work games."

In Illinois? Jeff, let me introduce you to the good ol' boy network.

That just ain't the case.

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 08:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
I saw about 5 calls like that in various NCAA Mens games today. Fouls called for heavy contact <b>after</b> a clean block. I guess it works on girls games and NCAA mens games, but not in <b>your</b> boys games.:)
You must not have been watching the Memphis-Georgetown game. I saw plenty of times players went to the floor and not a single call was made in the second half when I had the opportunity to watch the game.

Peace

Ralph Sat Dec 22, 2007 08:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABO77
I have a tough time consistantly calling a player jumping and blocking a try and then make some contact after the block. Somtimes I have a foul...sometimes I dont. It seems everybody has their own opinion on this type of call/no call. I hear some officials treat it kinda like a blocked punt in football...some contact afterwards ok. But the next official will have a foul on the same exact play:confused: ...comments.
Lots of good comments here. My view is based on verticality. If the defender stays in his vertical plane and blocks the ball, and then there is contact, no foul. Usually if the defender stays in his vertical plane the contact is initiated by the offense player. If the defernder goes out of his vertical plane, regardless if it is after the shot, it's a foul unless it is deemed incidental. Keep in mind that a bump that occurs after the shot and moves the offense could put him out of position to get a rebound, catch the blocked shot, receive a quick pass back, etc., so claiming there was "no disadvantage" just because it was after the shot is pretty weak IMO.

On a related note, many officials believe defenders need to be "set" with both feet on the ground in order to get the benefit of a charge call. Wrong. I like to see officials sho have the guts to call a charge when the defender jumps vertically and the ballhandler jumps into the defender, or the defender is moving away (i.e., a step backward or to the side) from the advancing ballhandler (who initiates contact) or is set but is turning to protect himself from the collision.

JRutledge Sat Dec 22, 2007 08:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
"And if someone is doing it better, they will find them to work games."

In Illinois? Jeff, let me introduce you to the good ol' boy network.

That just ain't the case.
I have probably worked in more parts of Illinois than most. For example just this month I have already have worked in Plainfield (not school but town), Arlington Heights, New Lenox, Canton, was scheduled to work in Glen Ellyn but game was snowed out. I also worked in Blue Island, then Aurora the next day and this week I was in Nauvoo on Thursday and Abingdon on Friday. And that is just this month. By the end of the year I would have worked as far north as Harvard and as far south as Quincy. I will tell you, I am not the typical "in guy" that got to where I did by just knowing people. I go to about 5 camps a year almost every year, I did not start officiating in the Chicago area, but the very first year I moved to this area I received varsity games. I even worked in a couple of conferences that I was told it would take years to get into because I did not have the history working JV and freshman ball. If you are holding on to that "ole boy network" excuse that is perfectly fine with me. I have seen many people that are not in that “system” get games and get very good games because they were seen at the right camp (which anyone can pay to attend) and because they did the right things to prove they could work the games and were willing to work the games that were given.

And if after all of that you still think their is an ole boy network system, then you need to call me on the phone or email me and we need to talk specifics about this issue and I can give you example after example of how this is not the case and why it is not the case.

Peace

RookieDude Sat Dec 22, 2007 09:02pm
Quote:
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...:D

fullor30 Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I have probably worked in more parts of Illinois than most. For example just this month I have already have worked in Plainfield (not school but town), Arlington Heights, New Lenox, Canton, was scheduled to work in Glen Ellyn but game was snowed out. I also worked in Blue Island, then Aurora the next day and this week I was in Nauvoo on Thursday and Abingdon on Friday. And that is just this month. By the end of the year I would have worked as far north as Harvard and as far south as Quincy. I will tell you, I am not the typical "in guy" that got to where I did by just knowing people. I go to about 5 camps a year almost every year, I did not start officiating in the Chicago area, but the very first year I moved to this area I received varsity games. I even worked in a couple of conferences that I was told it would take years to get into because I did not have the history working JV and freshman ball. If you are holding on to that "ole boy network" excuse that is perfectly fine with me. I have seen many people that are not in that “system” get games and get very good games because they were seen at the right camp (which anyone can pay to attend) and because they did the right things to prove they could work the games and were willing to work the games that were given.

And if after all of that you still think their is an ole boy network system, then you need to call me on the phone or email me and we need to talk specifics about this issue and I can give you example after example of how this is not the case and why it is not the case.

Peace
Jeff

No matter how many individual examples you have, such as yourself, who has earned his schedule through camps, hard work and above all good officiating, there are many more who have strictly by longevity been assigned to games that quite frankly are over their capabilities. At one point in their careers they may have earned those games, but like a tenured college professor, once you're in....... you're in. The statement 'if someone is doing it better, they will find them to do games' I find is altruistic at best.

Assignors neither have the time or inclination to seek out the very 'best' officials. Familarity over the years with officials who have become personal friends would and does make it very difficult to support your position and that's not a gripe, just reality.

Of course there are minimal additions and subtractions to an assignor's 'stable' every year, yet within that core are many officials for a myriad of reasons have not earned nor deserve the schedule they receive.

That said, the system is not patently flawed, it's just the way it is.

I liken it to Chicago city hall politics and patronage, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I doubt I will change your mind, and I know you'll never change mine.

Curious, when you moved here from another area, did you have an introduction from an ex-assignor or did you just show-up blind at camps?

More credit to you for the latter if that was the case.

JRutledge Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
Jeff

No matter how many individual examples you have, such as yourself, who has earned his schedule through camps, hard work and above all good officiating, there are many more who have strictly by longevity been assigned to games that quite frankly are over their capabilities. At one point in their careers they may have earned those games, but like a tenured college professor, once you're in....... you're in. The statement 'if someone is doing it better, they will find them to do games' I find is altruistic at best.
That is untrue. It is untrue on many levels and it is untrue because there are many examples of people being pushed out, you just have not been around likely to know many of the stories. And they are not pushed out just because the assignor wanted them out; they are pushed out because the coaches and administrators that hire the assignors push them out. But if the coaches and administrators are happy to have the older official that has been through the fire, they will stick around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
Assignors neither have the time or inclination to seek out the very 'best' officials. Familarity over the years with officials who have become personal friends would and does make it very difficult to support your position and that's not a gripe, just reality.
This is completely untrue. In the last 8 or so years I have worked older officials have retired or they have in some cases died and there have been a bunch of newer, younger, athletic officials that have been hired. I am only in my mid-30s but I have worked with many guys that are younger than me lately and they were recently picked up in conferences where assignors have been around. I am very rarely working with the "old guard" as much anymore as I used to. And I have been fired from leagues along with many others when we either disagree with the assignor or we have a game where a coach complains and we get the boot. And there have been state final officials that have gotten the boot in Chicago for not calling the game a certain way or because of some controversy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
Of course there are minimal additions and subtractions to an assignor's 'stable' every year, yet within that core are many officials for a myriad of reasons have not earned nor deserve the schedule they receive.
Then again, that is an opinion and you have every right to that opinion. But your opininon and my opinion does not count. I can tell you this, unless your prove you are have as competent, you are not going to push many out of their positions. The coaches would not allow it. Bottom line is the coaches would rather have a guy they know how that person is going to handle a situation, then a guy they have never seen, do not know how he will handle pressure to make a call or if the other coach can get under your skull. Assignors ultimatlely work for the schools and the coaches. If they put a rookie on a game and the coach does not like that rookie, the assignor is not going to keep giving the rookie games at that school. It is just not going to happen. And frankly, when I watch younger officials, I do not see a lot of guys that I want to work with in a tough game and I have to constantly save you. I like working with guys that can stand on their own two feet and I will help out if you need it in a real pinch. Assignors are looking for Referees, not U2s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
That said, the system is not patently flawed, it's just the way it is.

I liken it to Chicago city hall politics and patronage, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I doubt I will change your mind, and I know you'll never change mine.
You are right. Because the vast majority of officials that I come in contact with that claim the "ole boy network" system as the reason they do not get a shot, usually those are officials that I do not know if they could handle a good JV or Sophomore game. And when I was advancing in this system, 3 man was not even the games I was offered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
Curious, when you moved here from another area, did you have an introduction from an ex-assignor or did you just show-up blind at camps?

More credit to you for the latter if that was the case.
When I move up to the Chicago area the first thing I did was look at a map, figure out where I was willing to drive and called or contacted every assignor I could to see what camps they ran or were associated with and I tried to attend as many of those camps as possible. I already have varsity experience so all I had to do was showcase my ability. After the summer I did this, I was hired off the bat by two assignors to varsity games. I was even told in one of them that I had to prove to some coaches I could work. I even called a T in one of the games I worked in one of the conferences (2 man with a veteran officials). The coach was apparently impressed with me even though I called the T on his player and I got more games in that conference the following year. I was even observed by other officials that recognized my talent and had me work with them directly in games or gave me opportunities I would not have had. I had a sales background even then so I knew how to tell people about my experience and I would ask direct questions to see what I had to do. Every assignor that I currently work for in the Chicago area either saw me at a camp, or received recommendations by the right official that watched me work in front of them (varsity tournament) or saw me at another camp. Then when I showed up to a particular camp, I was observed and in most cases hired for varsity on the spot. I do not say this to brag, but I had the same information at my disposal as anyone else. Most assignors were listed in many association books and their contact information was public. All I had to do was contact the people, listen to what they expected and usually attended camps where they could see what I was about for themselves.

I also have another little secret for you. Many of the assignors do not like each other or respect the other decisions or their staffs. And you are not going to get 20 games from one assignor usually. Most are going to give you 3 to 4 games at most and if you get more you were available or lucky that others were closed and you were on the list. So if you are going to work a full varsity schedule, chances are you will have to work for many people and that is not going to happen because you think you are good and they will just hire you.

Peace

BktBallRef Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
2) The foul tip signal should NEVER be used by a basketball official unless he is the plate umpire in a baseball game or a softball game.

MTD, Sr.
Or he is a football umpire indicating that the pass was tipped in or behind the neutral zone. :)

Bearfanmike20 Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisSportsFan
Bad move IMO, what if a partner whistles foul? Now you got one coach happy and the other wants to know why he called a foul when you had a clean block. If it ain't a foul, don't blow you whistle...that's how they know.
OK.. well due to overwhelming pounding I'm taking on this.. the tip on block has been removed from my mechanics. ;)

Rich Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Or he is a football umpire indicating that the pass was tipped in or behind the neutral zone. :)
Or a white hat indicating a punt/kick was partially blocked. :)

JoeTheRef Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56am
I totally agree that the "block/tip" mechanic shouldn't be used on a shot, but do any of you use it for a ball that was tipped going into the backcourt? I don't use it, but I've seen others do.

TheOracle Wed Dec 26, 2007 01:11pm
Any time you use the block/tip mechanic, it gives fuel to a complaint. Any animus created by not making that signal dissapates a lot fatser with no signal at all. It is the same reason a no call, when play continues, doesn't linger nearly as longin everyone's mind as a touch foul that raises some ire, because play stops.

On the blocked shot/contact thing, you are all arguing a gray area again. At higher levels, they preach exactly what JeffR is saying. You need to determine who made the better play, the shooter or the defender, and not penalize a good play. "Don't screw the defense" is a typical mantra, so unless the defender had no chance to get to the ball without going through the shooter, I'd choose to play on. A huge majority of the time (90-95% for me), the defender makes a good play on a block, or has reasonable verticality, coming over to help on the drive. But it's always a judgment call.

Ch1town Wed Dec 26, 2007 01:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheRef
I totally agree that the "block/tip" mechanic shouldn't be used on a shot, but do any of you use it for a ball that was tipped going into the backcourt? I don't use it, but I've seen others do.
When & if I ever use it, it is to communicate with my partner.

Example: I'm T and A1 shoots the long range air ball that got deflected & goes OOB on partners endline, I'll flash him the "tip" if he signals the wrong direction.

I could also see a C helping a T with a tipped ball going backcourt to prevent the whistle from going off.

fullor30 Wed Dec 26, 2007 05:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
That is untrue. It is untrue on many levels and it is untrue because there are many examples of people being pushed out, you just have not been around likely to know many of the stories. And they are not pushed out just because the assignor wanted them out; they are pushed out because the coaches and administrators that hire the assignors push them out. But if the coaches and administrators are happy to have the older official that has been through the fire, they will stick around.



This is completely untrue. In the last 8 or so years I have worked older officials have retired or they have in some cases died and there have been a bunch of newer, younger, athletic officials that have been hired. I am only in my mid-30s but I have worked with many guys that are younger than me lately and they were recently picked up in conferences where assignors have been around. I am very rarely working with the "old guard" as much anymore as I used to. And I have been fired from leagues along with many others when we either disagree with the assignor or we have a game where a coach complains and we get the boot. And there have been state final officials that have gotten the boot in Chicago for not calling the game a certain way or because of some controversy.



Then again, that is an opinion and you have every right to that opinion. But your opininon and my opinion does not count. I can tell you this, unless your prove you are have as competent, you are not going to push many out of their positions. The coaches would not allow it. Bottom line is the coaches would rather have a guy they know how that person is going to handle a situation, then a guy they have never seen, do not know how he will handle pressure to make a call or if the other coach can get under your skull. Assignors ultimatlely work for the schools and the coaches. If they put a rookie on a game and the coach does not like that rookie, the assignor is not going to keep giving the rookie games at that school. It is just not going to happen. And frankly, when I watch younger officials, I do not see a lot of guys that I want to work with in a tough game and I have to constantly save you. I like working with guys that can stand on their own two feet and I will help out if you need it in a real pinch. Assignors are looking for Referees, not U2s.



You are right. Because the vast majority of officials that I come in contact with that claim the "ole boy network" system as the reason they do not get a shot, usually those are officials that I do not know if they could handle a good JV or Sophomore game. And when I was advancing in this system, 3 man was not even the games I was offered.



When I move up to the Chicago area the first thing I did was look at a map, figure out where I was willing to drive and called or contacted every assignor I could to see what camps they ran or were associated with and I tried to attend as many of those camps as possible. I already have varsity experience so all I had to do was showcase my ability. After the summer I did this, I was hired off the bat by two assignors to varsity games. I was even told in one of them that I had to prove to some coaches I could work. I even called a T in one of the games I worked in one of the conferences (2 man with a veteran officials). The coach was apparently impressed with me even though I called the T on his player and I got more games in that conference the following year. I was even observed by other officials that recognized my talent and had me work with them directly in games or gave me opportunities I would not have had. I had a sales background even then so I knew how to tell people about my experience and I would ask direct questions to see what I had to do. Every assignor that I currently work for in the Chicago area either saw me at a camp, or received recommendations by the right official that watched me work in front of them (varsity tournament) or saw me at another camp. Then when I showed up to a particular camp, I was observed and in most cases hired for varsity on the spot. I do not say this to brag, but I had the same information at my disposal as anyone else. Most assignors were listed in many association books and their contact information was public. All I had to do was contact the people, listen to what they expected and usually attended camps where they could see what I was about for themselves.

I also have another little secret for you. Many of the assignors do not like each other or respect the other decisions or their staffs. And you are not going to get 20 games from one assignor usually. Most are going to give you 3 to 4 games at most and if you get more you were available or lucky that others were closed and you were on the list. So if you are going to work a full varsity schedule, chances are you will have to work for many people and that is not going to happen because you think you are good and they will just hire you.

Peace

Little late on the reply,work, family and Christmas got in the way.

I told you we wouldn't agree;) It most certainly does exist and our frame of references are disparate, It's a matter of what degree. Does it permeate the system? No, but it does exist.

Believe as you wish. If this was a ruling conundrum we could arrive at the correct answer. I respect your opinion.

Not much of a secret regarding assignors at least from my dealings. You're further down the road than I am, but I had the lay of the land my first year.

Happy New Year!

JRutledge Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
Little late on the reply,work, family and Christmas got in the way.

I told you we wouldn't agree;) It most certainly does exist and our frame of references are disparate, It's a matter of what degree. Does it permeate the system? No, but it does exist.
I never stated there was not some kind of political structure in place. I am just saying it is not the end all be all of assigning. And just like anything if you do not understand the system you are working in, you will likely not be very successful. You always need to know the "do's and don'ts" of any system. We definitely have them, but they are not things most officials cannot easily overcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30
Believe as you wish. If this was a ruling conundrum we could arrive at the correct answer. I respect your opinion.

Not much of a secret regarding assignors at least from my dealings. You're further down the road than I am, but I had the lay of the land my first year.

Happy New Year!
Do not assume disagreement with disrespect. ;) We both have different experiences and that shapes many people's opinions on just about anything we talk about here. I just think just like anything the longer you do something, the more you understand the ins and outs of this situation. I did not understand much of anything about the systems I have been in after the first few years. Hell, I have learned things in the past couple of years I did not realize for almost 10 years. But we can talk about this further at another time and off this site. There are a lot of things people do not realize until you talk to certain "in the know" people (and at the right time). ;)

You also have a good New Year and have a blessed New Year as well.

Peace

Junker Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:16am
Quote:
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.
Sorry if this has been said, but I haven't had a lot of computer time the last few days. The "foul-tip" mechanic can get you in trouble. For example, my last game before break, my partner is L, doing the "foul tip" and I'm C with my fist in the air. That doesn't look the best.

johnny1784 Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:01pm
Quote:
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.
Is this a required or optional mechanic used during live ball?

Let me check my books...

johnny1784 Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town
When & if I ever use it, it is to communicate with my partner.

Example: I'm T and A1 shoots the long range air ball that got deflected & goes OOB on partners endline, I'll flash him the "tip" if he signals the wrong direction.

I could also see a C helping a T with a tipped ball going backcourt to prevent the whistle from going off.
I agree you may use it during a dead ball to communicate to your partner(s) or you could try at&t your communication loud and proud. :D

fullor30 Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I never stated there was not some kind of political structure in place. I am just saying it is not the end all be all of assigning. And just like anything if you do not understand the system you are working in, you will likely not be very successful. You always need to know the "do's and don'ts" of any system. We definitely have them, but they are not things most officials cannot easily overcome.



Do not assume disagreement with disrespect. ;) We both have different experiences and that shapes many people's opinions on just about anything we talk about here. I just think just like anything the longer you do something, the more you understand the ins and outs of this situation. I did not understand much of anything about the systems I have been in after the first few years. Hell, I have learned things in the past couple of years I did not realize for almost 10 years. But we can talk about this further at another time and off this site. There are a lot of things people do not realize until you talk to certain "in the know" people (and at the right time). ;)

You also have a good New Year and have a blessed New Year as well.

Peace

Glad we could meet in the middle on this, When I bump into you down the road(probably you correcting me at a clinic!!:D ) we can chat.....

Jimgolf Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:23am
Jeff, are you saying that when a defender jumps into a shooter and makes contact with the body, you don't have a foul unless the contact is flagrant?

Or do you mean when the defender jumps straight up, you don't have a foul on body contact?

If the defender is jumping into a shooter and makes body contact, the arm contact is relatively inconsequential. The shooter is likely to miss whether the shot is blocked or not.

However, if the defender is jumping straight up, the shooter is really responsible for the body contact.

JRutledge Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgolf
Jeff, are you saying that when a defender jumps into a shooter and makes contact with the body, you don't have a foul unless the contact is flagrant?

Or do you mean when the defender jumps straight up, you don't have a foul on body contact?

If the defender is jumping into a shooter and makes body contact, the arm contact is relatively inconsequential. The shooter is likely to miss whether the shot is blocked or not.

However, if the defender is jumping straight up, the shooter is really responsible for the body contact.
Just because there is body contact does not constitute there is a foul period. And it is not my job to "protect the shooter." And when the defender clearly blocks the ball without contact, then contact occurs I am not calling a foul to "protect the shooter." Incidental contact rules are very clear and I have no problem letting contact go in these situations.

Peace

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Just because there is body contact does not constitute there is a foul period. And it is not my job to "protect the shooter." And when the defender clearly blocks the ball without contact, then contact occurs I am not calling a foul to "protect the shooter." Incidental contact rules are very clear and I have no problem letting contact go in these situations.

Peace

Rut:

At the H.S. level, if B1 cannot block A1's shot without making contact with the B1, B1 has fouled A1. I am sorry, but blocking the shot before having contact does not give B1 a free pass. Jumping to block A1's shot is just part of B1's defensive responsibilities. B1 must also be able to do it without contacting A1 after the block, such as return to the playing surface or not hitting A1's arm or body. If B1 cannot do that then he has committed a foul against A1.

And that goes for the college game too. We officials are the problem in this situation. Just like the fans we see the great block and then forget that the defender has to complete his responsibilities without fouling. Everybody is screaming great block and then the defender hits the shooter's arm and lands on the shooter. We has officials have to do our job and see the whole play, NOT just the block.

MTD, Sr.

JRutledge Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Rut:

At the H.S. level, if B1 cannot block A1's shot without making contact with the B1, B1 has fouled A1. I am sorry, but blocking the shot before having contact does not give B1 a free pass. Jumping to block A1's shot is just part of B1's defensive responsibilities. B1 must also be able to do it without contacting A1 after the block, such as return to the playing surface or not hitting A1's arm or body. If B1 cannot do that then he has committed a foul against A1.

And that goes for the college game too. We officials are the problem in this situation. Just like the fans we see the great block and then forget that the defender has to complete his responsibilities without fouling. Everybody is screaming great block and then the defender hits the shooter's arm and lands on the shooter. We has officials have to do our job and see the whole play, NOT just the block.

MTD, Sr.
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

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 02, 2008 01:15pm
Quote:
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 Wed Jan 02, 2008 02:15pm
Quote:
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

btaylor64 Wed Jan 02, 2008 02:17pm
ABO77,

I just got into this thread so I'm not going to remotely try to read all the posts so if I reply the same as someone else... listen to that person too. haha.


This is a very difficult play to referee sometimes. I think you are right to say sometimes you have a foul on it and sometimes you don't, just make sure you have a reason and explanation of why you are reffing each play as you do. Don't be inconsistent in blowing one and then the same type play happens and you don't blow.


I hate, for whatever reason, using advantage/disadvantage all the time cause I believe there are some plays out there that need a whistle regardless of advantage/disadvantage, but it wouldn't be bad to use it here I guess.

Anyway, on plays to the hoop where the defender is coming from behind, you want to judge when the defender makes contact with the offensive player. Does he block the shot and then make contact? If so, how much contact? Enough to warrant to whistle? IMO these type plays with a blocked shot and then contact, I prefer a play-on unless the contact is sooo much that I can't ignore, i.e., running the guy into the stantion.

Plays that start with contact and then a block, I will 9 out of 10 times come up with a foul. The contact has to be marginal for me to come up with nothing though.

As you can tell this is very subjective, but try not to question yourself too much. Just always try to remember this question and see if it helps. "If this game was on tape, would the tape validate my call on this play or would it just show a clean block?"

Jurassic Referee Wed Jan 02, 2008 02:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64
This is a very difficult play to referee sometimes. I think you are right to say sometimes you have a foul on it and sometimes you don't, just make sure you have a reason and explanation of why you are reffing each play as you do. Don't be inconsistent in blowing one and then the same type play happens and you don't blow.

I hate, for whatever reason, using advantage/disadvantage all the time cause I believe there are some plays out there that need a whistle regardless of advantage/disadvantage, but it wouldn't be bad to use it here I guess.

Anyway, on plays to the hoop where the defender is coming from behind, you want to judge when the defender makes contact with the offensive player. Does he block the shot and then make contact? If so, how much contact? Enough to warrant to whistle? IMO these type plays with a blocked shot and then contact, I prefer a play-on unless the contact is sooo much that I can't ignore, i.e., running the guy into the stantion.

Plays that start with contact and then a block, I will 9 out of 10 times come up with a foul. The contact has to be marginal for me to come up with nothing though.

As you can tell this is very subjective, but try not to question yourself too much. Just always try to remember this question and see if it helps. "If this game was on tape, would the tape validate my call on this play or would it just show a clean block?"
Hmmmmmm........

Well stated and logical too imo.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 02, 2008 03:06pm
Quote:
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 Wed Jan 02, 2008 03:28pm
Quote:
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1