Only other official in our area that I am unwilling to work with is a result of this conversation. We did a half dozen games together and ended up in heated discussions at half time or after the game. At his request our assignor no longer pairs us.

My feeling: Once the ball has been blocked any arm or mild body contact after that is not putting anyone at a disadvantage so no call. How does someone getting hit in the arm as the ball is flying out of bounds disadvantaging them.

His feeling: You cannot hit a airborne player it is inherently reckless and effects the players body control, movement in air and on landing, while putting the player at risk of a hard landing or injury from not being able to avoid/absorb the contact. He falls back to I must protect the shooter.

The big issue we have is with players who block the ball and then their arm motion carries their arms into the arms of the original shooter once the ball has been blocked. I'm trying to no call and he's blowing the whistle assuming I missed the arm contact.

I'll bet he has long games and frustrated post players.

Key wording, "mild body contact!"

I guess the definition of a clean block is up for interpretation! ;)

Yeah, probably. But since anytime you call a foul on a clean block (where the ball is touched up top) you better have more than simply some body contact to call a foul. That is the way it is expected to be called, that is the way I call it.

You can do what you want and you certainly do not have to follow what I do. I just know that when these are blocks are made, I hardly hear a peep if nothing is called but an out of bounds or a play on is ruled.

Peace

Totally agree with you, but some coaches and players think if you get "any" part of the ball all bets are off with significant contact, not incidental or mild.

The rule of thumb is:
1) coaches and players think that it's a foul any time an opponent gets any part of the ball, whether there's any subsequent contact or not after that.
2) coaches and players think that it's a good block if they get any part of the ball any time on an opponent's shot, no matter what what the subsequent contact may be.

And that's why we never listen to the coaches or players when they start to whine about the above. :)

Just make the call and move on.

4-27-3 . . . contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal . . . offensive movement should be considered incidental.

IMO, a player who is in a good defensive position and first makes a clean block will be allowed a wider range of incidental contact than a player who comes recklessly from a bad defensive position and makes contact following a clean block.

Where is there support for your opinion in the rules cite you provide??
Are you consorting with the "spirit" as opposed to the essence of the rules?

Look at the incidental contact rule in 4-27. If someone blocks your shot, not sure what normal offensive movement you then have.

Peace

The ability to either retrieve the ball or play defense.

The ability to play defense is "offensive movement"???

Nope, it would be "normal defensive movement." Oddly enough, you'll find it very close to the place the rule book mentions "normal offensive movement."

What's everyone's opinion about a succinct explanation: "The block was clean, the body was not."?

Skip the first part, "He got him with the body, coach."
You can usually avoid this by giving a "block" signal when reporting it.