Obstruction play

[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.

[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

[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

[Clark Kent]

Ok Ok....now you all have me questioning this call more than I had previously (which is a good thing if I can learn from it). Can we run through the different scenieros for a moment.

Option 1. Assumption his knee extended and W5 didn't travel we have what C has in the video. A block and two shots correct?

Option 2. With the assumption that I was wrong on the "wider than normal" stance or the knee (which I easily could have been) but the assumption that W5 didn't travel, then we just have a no call on a shot correct?

Option 3. A no call on the block, and a travel = a travel

Option 4. A blocking foul, but a travel by W5 after the foul, then we have what Snaq mentioned earlier with a rare situation where because the travel created a non-legal shot attempt we award White the ball on the baseline. Correct?

What would be the proper mechanic for Option 4? Blow, fist, waive off shot, block signal, point baseline then report?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Ok Ok....now you all have me questioning this call more than I had previously (which is a good thing if I can learn from it). Can we run through the different scenieros for a moment.

Option 1. Assumption his knee extended and W5 didn't travel we have what C has in the video. A block and two shots correct?

Correct

Option 2. With the assumption that I was wrong on the "wider than normal" stance or the knee (which I easily could have been) but the assumption that W5 didn't travel, then we just have a no call on a shot correct?

Agreed

Option 3. A no call on the block, and a travel = a travel

Agreed

Option 4. A blocking foul, but a travel by W5 after the foul, then we have what Snaq mentioned earlier with a rare situation where because the travel created a non-legal shot attempt we award White the ball on the baseline. Correct?

Disagree. If you believe W5 was attempting a shot when he was fouled, but then traveled after the foul occurred, you would award two shots. The difference is that if the shot went in, you would wave it off and still award two shots.

What would be the proper mechanic for Option 4? Blow, fist, waive off shot, block signal, point baseline then report?
In this situation, the correct mechanic if the shot doesn't go in would be blow, fist, block signal, two shots, report. No reason to waive off the shot if it didn't go in as you would just add to the confusion.

If the shot went in, but the travel occurred, then I would have blow, fist, waive the shot, block, two shots. Then likely a quick explanation to your partners, then you are going to have to verbalize an explanation at the table and likely to the coaches.

*

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Ok Ok....now you all have me questioning this call more than I had previously (which is a good thing if I can learn from it). Can we run through the different scenieros for a moment.

Option 1. Assumption his knee extended and W5 didn't travel we have what C has in the video. A block and two shots correct?

Option 2. With the assumption that I was wrong on the "wider than normal" stance or the knee (which I easily could have been) but the assumption that W5 didn't travel, then we just have a no call on a shot correct?

Option 3. A no call on the block, and a travel = a travel

Option 4. A blocking foul, but a travel by W5 after the foul, then we have what Snaq mentioned earlier with a rare situation where because the travel created a non-legal shot attempt we award White the ball on the baseline. Correct?

What would be the proper mechanic for Option 4? Blow, fist, waive off shot, block signal, point baseline then report?

I agree on the first three.
For #4, if the act of shooting begun prior to the foul, but the travel occurred before the release, then you would have a blocking foul and 2FTs. The try would not count because it was not legal. I've called this exactly once in fifteen years of officiating. I elected to signal in this order: 1. fist up for the foul, 2. give the block signal, 3. wave off the shot, 4. pointed to the shooter's feet and signaled a travel, 5. indicated two shots.

I gave the coach of the shooting team a quick verbal explanation after reporting to the table. I simply told him that although his player was fouled in the act of shooting, I couldn't count the basket because the goal wasn't made legally because the kid traveled first. He accepted it and we went ahead with the FTs.

I have to credit this forum for helping me get that one. I would never have been so smooth and confident about it, if I hadn't discussed the situation here before, and known in my mind how to call it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Option 4. A blocking foul, but a travel by W5 after the foul, then we have what Snaq mentioned earlier with a rare situation where because the travel created a non-legal shot attempt we award White the ball on the baseline. Correct?

Nevada already addressed this, but since I came up here, I'll correct it as well. It's the rare case where you would wave off a shot and award two free throws for a shooting foul. I've never called it.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada already addressed this, but since I came up here, I'll correct it as well. It's the rare case where you would wave off a shot and award two free throws for a shooting foul. I've never called it.

Couldn't you say the travel was caused by the foul, therefore,.. it doesn't count, ...somehow,... ..

I've never seen this called, either, and just kinda wondering ....

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Couldn't you say the travel was caused by the foul, therefore,.. it doesn't count, ...somehow,... ..

What doesn't count? The travel? The foul? The shot?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Couldn't you say the travel was caused by the foul, therefore,.. it doesn't count, ...somehow,... ..

I've never seen this called, either, and just kinda wondering ....

By rule, no. Consider this play:

A1 jumps to shoot, gets fouled in the air, and releases the shot after she lands. Would you want to count that? There has to be some point where the try ends and a new one starts.

The rule says traveling causes the ball to become dead, and makes no exception for shooting fouls. A dead ball cannot score.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

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

Nothing wrong with that. It was just something I do not see around here very much if at all.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Nothing wrong with that. It was just something I do not see around here very much if at all.

Peace

What's that? Women working boys ball? Happens all the time here, more so than my last two locales.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What's that? Women working boys ball? Happens all the time here, more so than my last two locales.

First off all there are not a lot of women here period that officiate in my area. And when I do see them, they usually get a shot to work college pretty early. And the coaches have such a need to see them at the girl's varsity level; they get every chance to work those levels as well. It does not happen very often around here for those reasons. I am sure some assignors will not hire them for boy's games, but the numbers are so low and working college ball hurts the opportunities to work high school ball.

Peace