What do you have???

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No. Look up the rule on incidental contact, particularly the "may be severe" portion.

Incidental contact is not for when determining fault is difficult (as in this case). If you've got a block/charge with severe contact (not necessarily referring to this particular case), it is not incidental....ever. To call a play incidental just because it's hard to tell is a cop out. We've got to make a decision. If we can't see the play and choose not to make a call instead of guessing, that's one thing, but it's not that we've decided that the contact was incidental.

The kind of severe contact that is incidental is, for example, when two players simultaneously and aggressively converge on a loose ball from opposite directions. Big collision, no foul.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For what it's worth, I used "acceptable" because of the poor angle and quality of the video; and because I tend to defer to the judgment of the officials on the court without concrete evidence to the contrary.You gonna call a charge on him just because he gets injured?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I couldn't disagree with this more. Let's assume for a second that the defender was there in time (which I think he was), and that the defender did not fall backward in anticipation of contact. Let's assume he was not affected at all by contact that the airborne shooter is clearly responsible for.

The frame-by-frame has established that he defender was not there in time. But, for the moment, let's assume he was along with your other criteria. No foul.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You claim you have to have a whistle on any contact with an airborne shooter involved. Who you calling the foul on? Based on what rule?

When the defender is responsible for the contact (as in this case) and the shooter goes down hard, yes. I'm going to have a call on the play in this video...I might be wrong, but that is not one I feel should be passed on.

[Adam]

Camron, I agree with you. I was referring to incidental contact in answer to his question, "With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game?"

Your example of the loose ball scenario is exactly what I was thinking of. How many of us have had two players knock heads going for the ball? Nothing to call, but it looks horrible; especially when only one player is hurt. Other than checking the surviving player for a secret helmet, there's nothing to do but stop play for the injury.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to view the frame by frame here at work (firewalls prevent pictures from coming up from this particular website), so I can't verify one way or the other. I'll agree if the defender was late, a block is warranted. If the defender was on time, a no-call is probably the best option given the flop.

Since it takes frame-by-frame analysis to determine one way or the other, I think a no-call is "acceptable," even if it ends up being wrong.

My biggest point is that, just because a player goes down and gets hurt does not require a whistle. I could come up with countless examples of plays where either, a) neither player is responsible for the contact or b) the disadvantaged (or even injured) player is the one responsible.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, I agree with you. I was referring to incidental contact in answer to his question, "With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game?"

This is not incidental contact.

Your example of the loose ball scenario is exactly what I was thinking of. How many of us have had two players knock heads going for the ball? Nothing to call, but it looks horrible; especially when only one player is hurt. Other than checking the surviving player for a secret helmet, there's nothing to do but stop play for the injury.

I totally agree.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to view the frame by frame here at work (firewalls prevent pictures from coming up from this particular website), so I can't verify one way or the other. I'll agree if the defender was late, a block is warranted. If the defender was on time, a no-call is probably the best option given the flop.

Going frame by frame you are able to see that the defender was moving.

Since it takes frame-by-frame analysis to determine one way or the other, I think a no-call is "acceptable," even if it ends up being wrong.

My biggest point is that, just because a player goes down and gets hurt does not require a whistle. I could come up with countless examples of plays where either, a) neither player is responsible for the contact or b) the disadvantaged (or even injured) player is the one responsible.

I agree that just because a player is injurerd doesn't mean there has to be a foul. Never said that and never thought that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

This is not incidental contact.

Why not?

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Going frame by frame you are able to see that the defender was moving.

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why not?

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

Yes, he did get two feet down in front of the shooter and had LGP but he also continued drifting sideways (more into the path of the shooter) after the shooter jumped.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why not?

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

Breaking it down screen by screen you can clearly see the defender moving into the path of the airborne shooter while he is in the air. Also I don't see why his two feet being on the ground would be definitive of it being one way or the other. What if he had two feet planted and was leaning w/ his body into the shooter?

As far as the "incidental contact" part goes that can be debated. I'm sure most contact on the court is incidental, but it's still a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Breaking it down screen by screen you can clearly see the defender moving into the path of the airborne shooter while he is in the air. Also I don't see why his two feet being on the ground would be definitive of it being one way or the other. What if he had two feet planted and was leaning w/ his body into the shooter?

For now, I'll take your word for it. My point stands, however. Here are the options I see:
1. Blocking foul.
2. no-call.

Since a frame-by-frame analysis is required to determine which way to go, the "wrong" call is acceptable, IMO.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

As far as the "incidental contact" part goes that can be debated. I'm sure most contact on the court is incidental, but it's still a foul.

Some might consider this statement absurd.
It cannot be incidental and a foul. It's one or the other.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Some might consider this statement absurd.
It cannot be incidental and a foul. It's one or the other.

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".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

What if he had two feet planted and was leaning w/ his body into the shooter?

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?

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Whether he was moving is not relevant. Once he establishes legal guarding position, he can move laterally or backwards. It only takes a split second to establish LGP before he can continue moving.

Did he ever get two feet on the floor, in front of the shooter, before the shooter leapt?

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.

Of course, I still believe that the defender got to his spot in time. Pictures 4 and 5 as posted by mu4scott are the critical ones.

In Frame 4 the defender has arrived at his final location, has two feet on the floor, and is facing the opponent. One cannot tell for sure because the official's head is in the way, but it is my opinion that the offensive player's left foot is still in contact with the floor at this time.

That's all that we need to establish to know that the defender's position is legal. As soon as the opponent's left foot leaves the floor the defender cannot move from that spot on the court. He can move his body, arms, head, etc., as long as he remains in that location. That is what I see in Frame 5. I do not see the defender moving to a new spot on the court. I see him fall backwards with his body to cushion/lessen the impending blow from the offensive player who clearly jumps into him. Whether there is enough contact to warrant a charge or not is up for debate, but no way can this be a block because the action of the defender was legal per the rules.

[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 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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Since it takes frame-by-frame analysis to determine one way or the other, I think a no-call is "acceptable," even if it ends up being wrong.

Would you say the same (that a no-call is "acceptable") if the contact was straight on, significant, with no hint of a flop and multiple bodies flying but was so close that it took a frame-by-frame to be sure about who was responsible? I just can't subscribe to no-calling something because it is hard to tell who is responsible if it is clear that some foul should be called (defender was there or they weren't). I'm going to go with my instinct and call something. It may be wrong, but I think its worse for the game to do nothing.