Obstruction play

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Snaqs and Wellmer (aka Hitch Them Pants Up High, ) have questioned whether two free throws should have been awarded for the blocking foul because A1 released the ball after the T's whistle. The answer is yes (assuming that A1 had picked up his dribble before he was fouled by B1, and from what I can see on the video, that is what I see).

Remember what the definition of continous motion tells us. And that is that a player can finish any legal footwork after the foul and before the release of the attempt. It is no different that if A1 had been fouled while in the air but before he was able to release the ball for the attempt.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Good night all. I have to get some sleep before I make a courier run at midnight.

[jdw3018]

Mark, while I agree completely with what you say, I think the questioning by both Snaqs and Wellmer had to do with whether, after the foul, the offensive player had either committed a violation that would negate the try, or ended the try and started another.

From what I've seen, I don't see anything illegal and would judge that the entire action consisted of one try. However, it's possible he traveled prior to the try...can't tell for sure from the video.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

The player had begun gathering the ball prior to contact so the shot will be good.

Secondly unless the defense does something to warrant the block this is a nocall in my book as the defense had guarding position. IF anything its a PC.

But like I said unless the defender does something like stick the knee out or move sideways into the offensive player this is one of those that look bad, but an incorrect call is worse.

I will say in the heat of the moment I might be apt to make a block call as well. Just got to be there to be able to correctly judge in the game.

deecee, I'm partly going off of the description from the official who was there, the C, who suggested his knee went out (memory can be a funny thing) and partly from the video which seems to me to substantiate that memory.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Snaqs and Wellmer (aka Hitch Them Pants Up High, ) have questioned whether two free throws should have been awarded for the blocking foul because A1 released the ball after the T's whistle. The answer is yes (assuming that A1 had picked up his dribble before he was fouled by B1, and from what I can see on the video, that is what I see).

Remember what the definition of continous motion tells us. And that is that a player can finish any legal footwork after the foul and before the release of the attempt. It is no different that if A1 had been fouled while in the air but before he was able to release the ball for the attempt.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Good night all. I have to get some sleep before I make a courier run at midnight.

Mr. Sr.,
I wish you'd gotten some sleep before slandering me like this.

I'm fully aware of the defiition of continuous motion and how it applies to this play. Further, I've never stated, anywhere, that the timing of the release with regard to the whistle (it was C's whistle in this case) is even relevant to anything.

My question on this one was, clearly stated as jdw caught, whether A1 traveled between the time of the illegal contact and the release of the try. Wellmer's question, equally valid, was whether or not A1 gave up on his try only to begin a 2nd one after the foul was committed.

Now, while I think this play was a good chance to have this discussion (apologies to Mr. Kent for hijacking the thread), I agree that he neither traveled nor ended his initial try before releasing the ball.

[Juulie Downs]

Going back to the original video, I'm not sure it's a foul. I can't tell whether he moves his knee after he takes his stance. If he didn't slide his knee into the path of the dribbler, I'd say no foul. I can't say for sure, but if he just lined up, planted and held, then I'd say his stance with within "normal" range, and he gets benefit for a good defensive play. But if his knee slides at all toward the dribbler, then it's a no-brainer.

[Adam]

I would say an additional factor is if he planted a position with the feet spread unnaturally apart. He's entitled to a normal defensive stance, not an extra wide one.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would say an additional factor is if he planted a position with the feet spread unnaturally apart. He's entitled to a normal defensive stance, not an extra wide one.

Right, but I don't think the defensive stance in the video is unnaturally wide. I guess I didn't say that very well.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

The player had begun gathering the ball prior to contact so the shot will be good.

That's not enough. Player's gather the ball prior to passing as well.
We need to see the start of the shooting motion in order to award FTs.

That varies from play to play, but it is certainly more than just gathering the ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Snaqs and Wellmer (aka Hitch Them Pants Up High, ) have questioned whether two free throws should have been awarded for the blocking foul because A1 released the ball after the T's whistle. The answer is yes (assuming that A1 had picked up his dribble before he was fouled by B1, and from what I can see on the video, that is what I see).

Same comment as I just made to deecee. Sorry, but that doesn't constitute habitual motion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Going back to the original video, I'm not sure it's a foul. I can't tell whether he moves his knee after he takes his stance. If he didn't slide his knee into the path of the dribbler, I'd say no foul. I can't say for sure, but if he just lined up, planted and held, then I'd say his stance with within "normal" range, and he gets benefit for a good defensive play. But if his knee slides at all toward the dribbler, then it's a no-brainer.

I agree, I am thinking this is not a foul. At least not based on the angle we have. I could see this as nothing if the defender never leaned over or stuck out his leg.

Also, was this a woman working this game?

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's not enough. Player's gather the ball prior to passing as well.
We need to see the start of the shooting motion in order to award FTs.

That varies from play to play, but it is certainly more than just gathering the ball.

I disagree, just gathering the ball allows the player to pass or shoot. I dont judge intent I just wait to see - the player might have intended to pass but after the shot changed it who knows. I dont make that assessment.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by deecee

I disagree, just gathering the ball allows the player to pass or shoot. I dont judge intent I just wait to see - the player might have intended to pass but after the shot changed it who knows. I dont make that assessment.

Agreed. I've been taught that the gathering of the ball - especially as the player is moving as in a layup or a 'runner' - is the beginning of the shooting motion.

If the player is fouled as he is gathering the ball and continues through to his shooting motion, it's a shooting foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Agreed. I've been taught that the gathering of the ball - especially as the player is moving as in a layup or a 'runner' - is the beginning of the shooting motion.

If the player is fouled as he is gathering the ball and continues through to his shooting motion, it's a shooting foul.

That is the way I was taught and what we teach.

Peace

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Now, while I think this play was a good chance to have this discussion (apologies to Mr. Kent for hijacking the thread), I agree that he neither traveled nor ended his initial try before releasing the ball.

No apology needed....hijack away!

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also, was this a woman working this game?

Yup...she is pretty darn good. Played D1 and now works D1 on the woman's side as does the Lead