What do you have???

[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

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".

You mean ACCIDENTAL, not incidental. That's the problem.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You mean ACCIDENTAL, not incidental. That's the problem.

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?

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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?