What do you have???
 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifIOQrCA5Vk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifIOQrCA5Vk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifIOQrCA5Vk

First thing i got is green post player for travelling. Unless it's the summer....

Two points for White and the ball OOB for Green anywhere along the endline.

Why? Do you think that something different should have been called on the play?

Hard to tell. You might have nothing at all. The camera angle does not help to show if there was any contact or much contact.

Also I would not have a travel without knowledge of what the player is doing with the ball. You are looking at the players back. You must have control to have a travel. It is not about the feet if a player does not have control of the ball. But I would not expect a coach to know that. :D Anything that looks funny to them is traveling. The official was looking dead at the play, unlike the video.

Peace

So your saying goaltending and a blocking foul on green? Would white get to shoot a free throw as well?

Goaltending? No way. The ball was not above the rim. And it looked like the ball was on its way up. Two things you need to have GT were not present.

Peace

I didn't think it was goaltending either. That's why I questioned the "two points for green".

Two points for white is what nevadaref said. And that would be because #30 for white scored.

Looks like a good no-call from the crappy angle we have. Looked to me like the defender flopped; couldn't tell why white stayed down, though.

First thing we've got is a Trail official (who becomes the new Lead) standing there and watching all the players take off down the court and then finally decides maybe he should get his a$$ going and thus is in absolutely no position to make any call on this play...luckily for him, I don't really think there was anything to call. There wasn't that much contact and the only reason the white player stayed down is because he hit his elbow on the floor...moral of the story - don't get beat down the floor on plays like this. That was just flat-out laziness.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

White make a basket on a follow-up attempt after the blocked shot. That's where the two points come from.

What GT are you talking about?

What blocking foul?

You still haven't stated what YOU believe should have been called on this play. Please be specific.

Definitely not goaltending, but I think there's probably a blocking foul on the drive. The contact, even if slight, certainly seems to have sent A1 to the floor. Can't tell definitively from the camera angle, but I am leaning more toward the blocking foul than others seem to be.

Did the defender obtain his position before the offensive player became airborne?

I agree, a travel on the post player first......and then the second play may have never happened!!!!

(NevadaRef... my fault for not being clear about what I was trying to convey. I've always enjoyed your insights on this board. I think I came across a little rude.)

IMHO....

You have to have a whistle on the drive to the basket. From the angle we have it looks like a block to me. I don't see how you can't have a whistle one way or the other on this play.

White gets two free throws and no goaltending IMO.

Fair enough. I didn't think that you were rude. I just didn't understand what point you were trying to make by posting the video.

In my experience anytime someone posts such a clip that person has a strong opinion about the situation and is looking to share it and get feedback from others.

Therefore, I'll give you my two cents on this play.
1. I believe that the defender established his position on the court prior to the offensive player's second foot leaving the floor (although it is impossible to tell because the official's head obscures the feet of the players). So I believe that he got there in the nick of time. Also, it is my opinion that the defender was not moving towards the opponent and thus did not initiate any of the contact. Therefore, I cannot penalize the defender on this play. I simply can't state anything that he did wrong. So I'm either calling a PC or nothing.

2. Did the amount of contact warrant a PC? Was the defender placed at a clear disadvantage by the contact?
My answers are no to both questions. The attacking player seems to slide to the side and only clip the defender's shoulder and upper body. The defender goes down trying to draw the call. The offensive player gets a bit hurt on his fall because he was at an awkward angle, but he chose to make that move and put himself in that position. I'm not giving him anything that he doesn't deserve just because he stays down.

So my thought is that the official had a poor angle as he got beat in transition, but was fortunate that nothing needed to be called on the play.

In summary even if the action looks very ugly and bodies are on the floor, I have reached a point in my officiating where I can live with no whistle being put on the play, if I truly believe that neither player did anything illegal by rule and that the amount of contact was incidental.

It is my opinion that the defender was late to the spot and I'd agree with a block. However, as with most YouTube videos, the quality is pathetic and no easy way to go slow motion so I don't hold that opinion strongly and wouldn't argue with anyone who called nothing....defender did appear to do a little embellishment on whatever contact there was. I do not thing it was a charge, however.

I'm with Nevada on this one. I thought the defender was there in time, but contact was minimal if anything due partly to the defender's acting performance. There may have been a PC if the defender hadn't given up his position; but it's hard to tell with the angle.

So we have 2 votes for charge, 3 votes for block, and 2 votes for no-call. I think we have found a specimen of the very elusive 50-50-50 play!

I think it's closer to 40-60-40.
In case I wasn't clear, my vote's for no-call.

I try to give a ruling based on my first viewing of these videos and then replay them to see if I would stick with my original call or not. The first time I played it I had a travel on green at the beginning. On the contact at the other end I would have called a block. On both plays the camera angle was poor, so difficult to tell for sure. Those would have been my "real time" calls. After replaying I think it probably was a travel, but I would ultimately be guessing. And on that block/charge call, I can't tell on that one for sure either. That angle simply doesn't provide for enough info to properly judge the play. It does look like the defender made it in the nick of time, but the contact also seems a lot less then what the bodies on the floor may indicate. But then again, the defender could have been moving in towards the ball handler as well.
I guess if I had a second chance to judge it I would go with a no-call because the contact was lighter than I thought and I simply can’t tell for sure from that angle.

Put me down as agreeing with you.

Agreed...at 29 secs on the shot clock....not 100% from that video but there was a lot of footwork before the ball appeared to ever leave his hands. But, given the video angle/quality it is entirely possible that the player didn't actually have control of the ball which would allow such foot movement.
For the defender yes, he clearly embellished the contact. But the offensive player was partially flipped over. He went up with his body roughly vertical but came down horizontal. There was certainly some contact.

It's only a matter of determining fault....and that is no certain task from this video. If the defender was late or moving toward the shooter, that has to be a block. If the defender was there in time, a no call could be warranted give then the defender took himself out of the play more than the contact did.

I'm going to go back and read everyone's post later, but for now I'm just going to tell you what i have:

It looks like a travel on green in the post, but I said it "looks like" a travel. I can't really see what the ball is doing in the post players hand. He could be fumbling it, so I'm leaving that alone.

Next, on the transition play I have a block, according to my pro standards which is all i've ever learned, but with my new knowledge of a player having to be airborne I guess it would be a charge, either way there absolutely, necessarily has to be a whistle on this play! this is not a play that can be left alone! some ppl might say we can't see how much contact there was from that angle but the offensive player goes down really hard and is hurt so I would deem that sufficient contact.

Lastly, the block by the player in green is legal. He takes it to the board not off the board.

Good *** play. This is one of those plays that I was talking about in another thread where you can go either way with by knowing what you've called throughout the game.

I absotively, posilutely have a travel on the post player at the beginning and I have a block on the final shot. Then, since the coach would have come out on the floor to dispute my call, I have a technical on him, followed by a second one and an ejection for his continuing to argue. He is then suspended for the rest of the season for attempting to throw a punch (he misses, of course, since my reaction time is outstanding despite the meds) and my cousin Tony S. goes to his house and breaks a few kneecaps.

That's my call.

After watching the play several more times I’m even more certain a whistle has to be blown on the block/charge call. I personally think it’s a block, but if it’s 50/50 then I give it to the player in green for his dramatic lunge backward.

I’ve passed on these things before and it seems like chaos usually follows.

I don't agree this is a must whistle play. I can't improve upon what Camron said:

Didn't get it then, don't get it now. What does the earlier call have to do with this one, no matter when it happened? This is truly an example of a "call that could go either way" as proven by the split among experienced officials here.
Just see the play and make the call, then live with it. "How did I call this similar play earlier?" has no place in the decision imo.

I still say that the best thing to learn from this video is to get your a$$ down the court on transition plays. Do NOT stand there and watch the players run past you and then decide it's time to get going...that official was lazy on that play and there is never an excuse for being lazy!:mad:

But that is exactly the point. If you have 2 similar plays that can go either way and you had a "?????" on one end of the court then why wouldn't you have "?????" on this end?

This is the problem with you working other levels of basketball. You admit that you have only learned a pro philosophy so that is the only way in which you can view plays. Unfortunately, that means that you are getting a number of calls wrong when working at the NCAA or NFHS levels, if you continue to do so. I would ask you to please cease working those levels of play and just focus on the pro games if that is your goal. Those of us who work those games don't need you making incorrect decisions based upon rules and principles from another level of play. It only makes our lives harder and counters all that we do towards educating the fans, coaches, and players at those levels.

I put three specific comments of yours in RED above which are incorrect in either an NCAA or NFHS game.

1. You now know that and openly admit that you judge block/charge by the start of upward movement of the offensive player while the NCAA and NFHS standard is when both feet of the offensive player have left the floor. You say that you would have a block by the favor-the-offense pro-philosophy, but then you actually admit that since you now know the correct criterion for NCAA and NFHS this play could only be considered a charge. So what would you actually call during an NCAA game? If your answer is block for the reason previously stated, then you have no business on a college floor. Unfortunately, the pro game has destroyed the balance between the offense and defense and that makes it far less appealing to watch. Clearly the NBA brass believes that offense sells tickets, but there are many fans that appreciate defense and the pro game consistently over-penalizes and screws the defense.

2. An offensive player tries to jump over and around a defender by flinging his body at an awkward angle and you are going to give him a call because he "goes down really hard and is hurt". Are you serious??? That's an incredibly immature comment. All that it shows is that the official isn't courageous enough to stand the heat of making the proper decision and would rather take the easy way out. Please show me in the rules where injury is the standard by which to judge a foul.

3. For the GT decision whether the ball has struck the board or not means absolutely nothing at the NFHS level and didn't matter for NCAA either until last year. That was a recent change in the college game. Thanks for letting us know your pro view of this play, but please make it clear for other officials reading this forum that you are employing those criteria and not the NFHS rules.

What if both close plays occur on the same end of the court? Should the officials call both plays the same so that both close decisions go against the same team?

What a great point! I forgot about that rule requiring an equal number of fouls to be called on each team. Thanks for reminding me.

I do not think it is clear there was actually any contact with the defender by the shooter. It looks very possible that the shooter was preparing for contact and just fell. After all there was no call by the official and we cannot see if there was much contact if any. I did not clearly see the shooter bounce off the defender. I saw a shooter just fall to the floor.

Peace

Because there is no signal for "?????" No two plays are identical. If you
had a similar play earlier and called a block, should you call a block here in the name of consistency? NO Should you call pc to "balance the game?" NO
See the play and call it no matter what the last call was.

Well, if you're the Crew Chief and that's how you want it done then that's how we do it.

But I have worked with plenty of officials who are far more successful than I who pre-game "If we have a 50/50 play and we call a block, then if we have a similar 50/50 play later on the other end then we call a block in the name of consistency."

Looks pretty obvious to me there is contact. I realize the camera angle makes things a little subjective, but the offensive player's body is clearly altered after he releases the ball.

It does not look obvious to me because he fell like a bag of bricks. And considering I have seen that play for real, and the defender never moved (his feet were basically in the same place, which is a clear sign he flopped), there might have been some contact, but not contact that caused the shooter to fall.

Peace

When a player is going hard to the basket like this it doesn't take much of a bump to get them off balance. I'm not adament that it should be a block or a charge, but I do think it needs to be one or the other.

After pausing the play and looking at the lead officials position when the "crash" occured he has the same angle as we do (his lack of hustle duelly noted).

At each camp I went to this summer it was drilled in our heads that if you have players on the floor in a situation like this (block/charge calls especially) you better have a whistle.

<a href="http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/?action=view&current=ref.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/ref.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Traveling on green post player for sure.

Blocking foul on other end and it is not even close.

Good block -- not goaltending.

I have reorganized some statements from your post so as to respond to its content in the most effective way.

So what if he is off balance due to some contact? WHO CAUSED THAT CONTACT? If you are going to penalize the defender on a play such as this, then you must articulate exactly what the defender did that was illegal.
If he merely stood there and the offensive player bumped into him and was thrown off balance, then you should not be penalizing the defender.
You have yet to state what you believe the defender did that was illegal.

That has been the philosophy of the NCAAW game for a few years now, but it has not been and currently is not the concept used in NCAAM games or NFHS games. Sometimes severe contact occurs that is just incidental and does not require a whistle even if there are multiple bodies on the floor. Despite what you are hearing at camp, that is acceptable under the right circumstances in the NCAAM and NFHS games.

Great job of recognizing the troublesome position of the official at the time of the critical play, and some really cool work in freezing and positng the video frame!
This is what is called getting straight-lined. The official is lined up with the two players such that he cannot see between them. Thus he has no angle to see or judge any contact that may occur. This official has a very poor position from which to try to make a decision on this play. Learn from his mistake and work hard for proper angles on possible contact situations.

Why, Brad? Please be specific. What did the defender do that was so clearly illegal in your view?

Awww...you didnt have to tell everyone about me!!!!!! LOL!!!!!

That is my bad for not being clear on my thoughts. I think the defender was late in getting there and his contact caused the offensive player to lose his balance and fall awkward. If I was standing on the baseline and the defender merely flopped and the offensive player was never touched and simply lost his balance then I have nothing. IMHO I think there was contact so I have to have a whistle.

As far as the “players on the floor philosophy” goes I’m only repeating what I heard and was told by a handful of DI men’s clinicians as well as an assigner. Bodies on the floor then you better have a whistle.

I have mad photoshop skills. :)

Maybe he's going with the block because of the flop?

Looks like substantial contact was made.

<a href="http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/?action=view&current=ref1r.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/ref1r.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Simply put, if you've had 3 of these very close plays (99% the same situation, same timing, same contact) and all were called as a block against green and then when the same thing happens at the other end of the court, it better be a block on white.

I just don't see how there could not be contact. Shooter when up vertical and came down horizontal. People just don't start rotating in mid-air without some external impetus...and doubt there was that much wind in the place.

Can put much stock in that...we've established that he was way out of position and was running full speed at the same time trying to make up for being flatfooted at the other end of the court.

Firewalls here prevent his picture from coming through. That said, I saw the video this morning, and video generally provides a better view of contact than a still shot.

There are examples of when "substantial contact" can and should be ruled incidental.

A1 (point guard) drives into the paint towards B5. A1 attempt to pull up short, but ends up hitting B5. Contact is sufficient to stop A1 cold in his tracks and he falls to the floor. B5 doesn't so much as flinch from the contact. It's a no-call on the contact, and a possible travel.

In the video, I can't have a block because it looks to me like the defense is in position. I can't have a PC because the defender was falling backwards by his own power; the offense didn't cause it. Everytime I've no-called a flop (well, most times) at this level (this looks like varsity), the coach yelled at his player for bailing out on the play.

Which player do you believe is responsible for that contact?
The defender who is crumpling backward and away or the offensive player who is jumping towards and into the defender?

At this point in the video (your still frame capture) the question of whether the defender arrived at his spot in time or late has to have already been answered. If you could say for sure that defender was late in obtaining his position, then this photo could justify a block call, but without that critical bit of information it seems more proper to penalize the offensive player from what is depicted in this frame.

Why are you responding to my question with something completely inappropriate? You state, "the same thing happens at the other end of the court..." I specifically asked about using the suggested philosophy of btaylor for a similar play AT THE SAME END of the court.

I want to know if part of his concept of recalling the previous close decision includes predetermining that the next close play ON THE SAME END also has to be called the same and thus go against the same team. Or perhaps he has the opposite idea and if the next close play happens on the same end his concept mandates that the official send it the other way.

I don't know what his position is, so I'm trying to find out.

I know what you said, I was reframing the situation to make a point. But just the same, if the same play (as I characterized it above) is a block 3 times on one end of the court, it should not turn into a charge the 4th time....even if they're all on the same end. I just reversed it to the other end of the court to amplify the inflammatory nature of being inconsistent.

If it happens multiple times, it's not the same play.


The call may or may not be the same.

What? That makes no sense at all. By definition, if the exact same thing happens multiple times, it is the same play. And yes, the call should be the same every time....becasue if it is no different, there is no reason to call it different.

The point is that plays are like snowflakes. No two are exactly alike. Therefore they must be judged individually. The last call has no bearing on the next call.

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul. Could you please reference some plays in which the defense is penalized even when the defender is completely legal in which the pros penalize the defender? I just need something to go off of b/c whereas i didn't know about the college rules you don't know about the pro game. Do you know the reasoning behind why the NCAA wants either blocks or charges on close plays called or do they say? We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block. The reasoning: we want players to keep attacking the basket and not be afraid so that the game ends up turning into a pull up jump shot fest. If i was given a legitimate reason why a league or a conference wants something a certain way, ok I'm fine with that but just to tell me to do it a certain way with no explanation, especially when my gut tells me its wrong, I have a problem with that. You're right I am still calling this a block. I am not going to reference the, "you shouldn't be on a college floor then" remark. I've worked my butt off to be there. I attempt to do what my CC says for the night and go on about my business. If he tells me I missed a play and gives me the reason why, I attempt to correct it if I have the play again.

2. I never said if a player slung himself into an opponent I would give him a foul if he went down and was hurt. I stated that there was sufficient enough contact to warrant a whistle and also the fact that he goes down hurt even more makes me have a foul on the play. Onus is on the defender to be legal! if he is not legal the only way i can absolve him from having a foul is if the offensive player does something overt such as lead with a knee or foot, in this case he doesn't do either. Yes the play in question has minimal contact, or at least so it seems, but it is enough that it takes the offensive players hips and legs out from underneath him causing him to not be able to return the floor in a normal position. We cannot choose to ignore illegal contact. Players have to decide outcomes of games through LEGAL actions, not illegal ones which we choose to ignore. if 2 players are on the floor on a drive to the basket 9/10 times someone has committed an illegal act and on that 1/10 times then you have 2 floppers on your hands and you better watch both of them the rest of the night.

3. Ok to make it clear for everyone on the forum I no longer referee NFHS. So my claim on this play is germaine to both leagues.

Also, just to note: If an offensive player was expecting contact and got none, while in the air, and he still wants to fall to the floor to simulate that something happened or he got fouled, he way more often than not is landing with a foot first to soften the blow and in this case he does not as he has no control once he got hip checked.

Gee, from the NBA games that I've seen, I coulda sworn that they went with the stars. If Kobe or LeBron was the shooter, it's a block. If Kobe or LeBron was the defender though, then it's a charge. The officials are really consistent that way. :)

I'll start to care about how the pros call a game when the pros actually start following their own rule book. Methinks that the same people training the Harlem Globetrotter officials are also training the NBA officials. Watching the LeBrons and Kobes of the world take 5-step layups over and over and over is absolutely ridiculous.

I see a blurry picture where I cannot see for sure contact or not contact. And really that was the point. You cannot tell much by the picture and if this was my look as an official, then I would be at best guessing.

Peace

If you've got to look that close to tell them apart, they're the same. We don't need to seperate the snowflakes from each other....just from the sleet, hail, rain, meteorites, and dead birds.

Agreed. This picture is worthless in determining wether there was contact and how much. From the video, you can see the defender flop. This picture doesn't discredit that thought at all.

Actually Ben the rest of your quote does in fact support the premise that the NBA has a "favor-the-offense" philosophy. But I already surmised that based upon a debate I had with one of your colleagues.

And based on my camp experiences, especially this summer, it seems the college philosophy is opposite--the observers I worked in front of seemed to want those 50/50 block/charge plays to go against the offense.

<a href="http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/?action=view&current=progress1aaa.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/progress1aaa.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points.

I’ll start w/ frame 2 and use frame 1 as just a starting off point.

Frame 2:

I think it’s pretty clear the offensive player is gathering himself to go up for the shot and is moving towards the basket. In my estimation he is taking one final step (left foot) and then going up. Note the defensive position of the player in green. His right shoulder from this angle is in line w/ the edge of the bleachers.

Frame 3:

The offensive player has started his ascension towards the basket. I believe he has planted off his left foot and his right foot is off the ground due to his knee being bent and it’s above his left leg. The defensive player has clearly changed his floor position and has moved towards the baseline.

Frame 4:

The offensive player looks to have both feet off the ground or very close to doing so. The ball is clearly above his head and he appears to be moving towards the basket. The defensive position of green has moved again in this frame. He has continued to move into the path of the shooter.

Frame 5:

This is the last frame before the offensive player releases the ball. If a person was not sure in frame 4 if the player had both feet off the ground then it’s very clear that is the case now. The defender continues to move his position on the floor. His body has moved further into the path of the now airborne shooter. I believe this is where the first contact occurs.

Frame 6:

Offensive player has released the ball and his body has distinctively different positioning. His feet are now starting to become parallel with the rest of his body. It appears this has happened because his waist has come in contact with the players left shoulder and head.

<a href="http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/?action=view&current=6.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/6.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Blocking foul on green and two shots for white.

The fact that this play has to be broken down frame-by-frame only reinforces that it was a call that could go either way.

Exactly right. So what happens if we have another play later in the game that's so close it has to broken down frame-by-frame? It could go either way. So. . . It better be the same call as whatever is made on this play, regardless of which end of the court it happens on.

I guess my main point is that a whistle has to be blown on this. I don't think you can pass on it.

And I think, from what I saw on the video (not frame by frame), a no-call is acceptable.

I don’t care for the term “acceptable” in this situation. Too much grey area in that. If there is contact (which I obviously think there was) then there needs to be a whistle one way or the other.

We are not going to agree on this and that’s fine, but answer me this.

With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game? What if that player had been seriously injured and flipped even further and landed on his head, instead of his elbow?

With an airborne shooter and there is contact I have a whistle. Better to err on the side of caution in my opinion.

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

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?

mu4scott,

You can break down the video 8 different ways that still does not change my original point on this. It is not clear there was much or any contact. You are looking at the back of the shooter and you do not see how much or if there was any space between the two players. Once again the player seemed to fall straight down, not bouncing off the defender and falling. The official in the video appeared to be in a better position than the video gives us. And to suggest that there has to be foul call on this without a better angle, suggests to me that you have not seen enough plays like this in your career, or you call the game based solely on what something looks like. I tend to not like to guess on plays like this. If I am not sure, I would rather pass on a play than call something completely wrong. And if there was a lot of contact with the defender, the defender would have fallen differently than he did in this video. Players that make hard contact do not fall with their feet relatively in the same place as in this play. So unless you have a different angle, I stand by my original point of view on this and use my experience to decide what I feel should or should not be called. I do not need anyone to convince me otherwise. I break down video all the time and this is not a very good video to make solid and definitive decisions based on what this shows.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

How can you honestly say there was no contact? You can debate the severity, but to say there is none is absurd.

Because the camera has a straightline angle and is taken from, what, 90 feet away? If it was HD, you might have solid evidence one way or the other. In the absence of a clear video, my thought is to defer to the official who was standing less than 10 feet away.

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.

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?

This is the part I agreed with you about. In this case, it's a must-whistle play, even if no one gets hurt. And sell the he!! out of it, whichever call you make.

As blurry and bad as the video quality is, it is more than adequate, when viewed frame-by-frame, to establish that the defender was moving sideways after the shooter jumped. No HD needed. Regardless of the resolution, motion relative to fixed points on the wall/bleachers is pretty visible.

The mere fact that there is a RA around the basket is conclusive proof that the pro game favors the offense. Is there anywhere on the court that the call goes against the offense BY RULE? Nope.
I'm sure that if Yao Ming or Tim Duncan stood one foot in front of the rim with his arms held straight up that his defense could be pretty effective and deter opponents from dunking. Of course, the way the NBA rules are written if the offensive player recklessly runs down the lane and crashes into this stationary defender the foul is on the DEFENDER!!!
Why? The guy is doing nothing illegal other than being in a certain area of the court which the league has designated as off-limits.
You want another example of a league rule that favors the offense?
How about the league used to ban zone defense, and now has a DEFENSIVE three-second violation!!! The defenders cannot play whereever they wish. They have to move away from the basket to provide the offense with a better opportunity to score.
What else favors high-scoring games...hmmm....could it be a 24-second shot clock? No team can slow down the tempo and hold the ball. The team must attack or lose the ball.
Yep, the league wants POINTS. The league wants OFFENSE.
Since you are being awfully naive, I fixed it for you. I've already stated how someone could play "legitimate" defense from that area. The rule has NOTHING to do with defense. It has to do with dollars. The idea was to clear space in the lane, which the big guys were clogging up, to allow the wing players to slash to the goal for highlight-reel dunks. That is what the NBA desires--plain and simple. No dunks = No fans = No money.
Defenders in that area of the court could stop a lot of dunks, draw a ton of charges, and greatly deter the opponents from attacking the rim. So the NBA banned it.
You even admit that the NBA does not want a jump shooting contest. Too bad, because some of us believe that is the most beautiful part of the game.

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.

I understand your comment about the defender falling as he did. Now what about the offensive player falling as he did? He can't magically check his hips out like that without some opposing force pushing on them. visual cues can aid you greatly in accuracy in play calling and this is one of those visual cues.

secondly I would like to ask the question why are you still talking about the defender and how he landed? i like that you used another visual cue here and it does look like he flops a little, but the defender is no longer our sole problem once the kid is airborne. we have to first determine if the defender is legal or illegal. In this case I would say most ppl have said he was illegal and with that being the case we now have to see if his illegal movement or positioning and subsequent contact, whether it be slight or not, hindered the offensive player from completing a natural basketball play or movement? If you take that criterion and still say no to it then fine I'm ok with that, but I believe you would be wrong in just saying that it was minimal contact and on that basis alone you don't have a foul for that reason, solely.

I would like to say this is my opinion, but under the assumption that the said player is illegal then he is what he is, illegal! Therefore, barring any overt move by the offensive player, the onus is on the defender to be legal and any subsequent contact hindering a player from completing a natural, athletic basketball move or play should be deemed a foul.

sidenote: if this offensive player lands straight on his feet or iow completing his move and in my judgement he was not hindered by this contact, then I would no call this play. At the same time if he lands on his feet and i feel he was unable to complete his move I would still have a whistle.

Gotta love this job! Not always so black and white!

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.

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

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.

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".

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?

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

Sorry but not even tim or yao could keep an NBA! player from dunking if he is just STANDING in front of the rim. These guys are pure athletes. The best in basketball! Now it is still legal if tim or yao jumps vertically while being in the RA. The jumping cleanses them from the play being reffed as an RA block/charge.

I was not talking about "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy in terms of rules that have been put in place. someone was mentioning it in regards to fouls and how we always attempt to favor the offense on those plays.

Your accusations are correct. We want a lot of slashing, cutting/driving to the basket, and freedom of movement in our game which is more condusive to higher scoring games. The NBA made rules to aid in this.

you're right, a defender is not allowed to be in the RA, nor is a defender allowed to be in the paint without actively guarding somebody for more than 3seconds, its just like stepping out of bounds, you are not allowed to do it.

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?

The difference is "incidental" contact is directly defined in the rule book, and it specifically states that incidental contact is not a foul.

"Accidental" is not relevant.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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. ;)