What do you have???

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Huh?? Maybe we are not on the same page as far as the word "incidental" is being described. I can think of many instances where a player was called for a foul that was 'incidental".

Just to reiterate, don't look in the dictionary to define incidental contact. Look in the rule book. Rule 4, if memory serves. They're in alphabetical order.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Is the offensive player leaning with his body? If you are going to penalize the defender for leaning, then you better also penalize the offensive player for the same action.

Who is moving into the opponent--the offensive player or the defender?

This is a good point, but I can't penalize the offensive player in this situation for taking a direct path to the basket and the defender moving in his way while he is airborne.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, Snaqs, it is relevant.
What you say is only for defending an opponent who is touching the court.

Once the opponent goes airborne (both feet off the floor), the defender cannot move in any direction. He doesn't have to be a statue. Some arm or body movement is acceptable because he is a human being and not a robot, but he certainly cannot move his feet to a new location.

Can he move his feet backwards, away from contact? Can he shuffle his feet while maintaining essentially the same position, perhaps in an attempt to brace his position?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

From dictionary.com

Incidental - happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.

Accidental - happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.


What's the difference?

This is what's callled jargon. When discussing basketball your terminology is important. That is what allows for clear communication between people.
You need to use the NFHS definition, not the dictionary definition.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Can he move his feet backwards, away from contact? Can he shuffle his feet while maintaining essentially the same position, perhaps in an attempt to brace his position?

My answers are no and yes.

Stepping backwards would put him in a new location and that might be where the offensive player was going to land unhindered. Now there is contact because the defender moved backwards into that space. That's a foul on the defender.

Turning one's foot to the side or snapping them together does not change the location of the player on the floor. I don't believe that it would be reasonable to penalize a defender for that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Stepping backwards would put him in a new location and that might be where the offensive player was going to land unhindered. Now there is contact because the defender moved backwards into that space. That's a foul on the defender.

Hmm, maybe if King James was trying to dunk over Bhuck Elics, I suppose.

[Cajun Reff]

I watched it one time and here is what I got "live"

in the lead I got travel on green in the post

If not a travel and I am in the trail, I got green with a push in the back after the first missed shot, white OOB

In the new lead I got to get my *** back quicker, then I definitely have a whistle and I got a blocking foul on green, white 2 FTs - No one in the building would dispute a whistle right there and with the two man crew green's coach only gets to argue the block for a little while

If I am the trail and the lead ganks the block/charge then I got a travel on white after the rebound before the followup basket

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

This is a good point, but I can't penalize the offensive player in this situation for taking a direct path to the basket and the defender moving in his way while he is airborne.

If you truly believe that the defender moved into his path AFTER both of his feet left the floor, then a blocking foul is correct.

I don't see that on this play. JMO.

PS I truly appreciate all the work that you put into the pictures. It greatly enhanced the discussion. Thanks.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Stepping backwards would put him in a new location and that might be where the offensive player was going to land unhindered. Now there is contact because the defender moved backwards into that space. That's a foul on the defender.

Stepping backward in this case means directly away from the offensive player, does it not? If so, if the defender had established LGP, no way can stepping backward result in a blocking foul.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you truly believe that the defender moved into his path AFTER both of his feet left the floor, then a blocking foul is correct.

I don't see that on this play. JMO.

PS I truly appreciate all the work that you put into the pictures. It greatly enhanced the discussion. Thanks.

I appreciate the spirited discussion. On some level I think we are all here trying to get better. I've learned a lot because of you from this thread.

p.s. I still think your blind as a bat.

[Mwanr1]

Rut: you should get a new video card and a monitor... if there's no contact, then the shooter must have some crazy special skills to fall sideways like he did in the video.

Mu4scott: great job with the pictures and freeze frame. I agree with you that the defender moved into the shooter's path AFTER ONE of his feet left the floor. The defender also felt sideways, not directly backward and didn't get hit in the chest. No way I'd call a foul or a no call. I'm going with the block. The new lead was clearly straightlined on this play and have no angle to make the correct ruling. Who knows, he could've completely missed the body contact as he was watching the ball.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

... I agree with you that the defender moved into the shooter's path AFTER ONE of his feet left the floor...

Does this mean the offense is considered airborne?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

I agree with you that the defender moved into the shooter's path AFTER ONE of his feet left the floor.

And there's the problem. Many officials don't understand the rules properly. How can they possibly make a correct decision on a play when they don't even understand what they should be looking for?

I've written the correct criteria in this very thread at least three times, and yet does this individual still writes that. How sad.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

p.s. I still think your blind as a bat.

I once had a coach tell me something similar. I replied that might be true, but that my hearing was excellent. He got a technical foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

I agree with you that the defender moved into the shooter's path AFTER ONE of his feet left the floor.

Ummmmm, "one of his feet?" Did the defender move after the shooters other foot left the floor? If he's got a foot down, he's not airborne.