When a block is a foul

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

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

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

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.

[Scratch85]

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.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Where is there support for your opinion in the rules cite you provide??

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

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[Judtech]

I prefer using the "push" signal, if you use the "block" signal it sometimes still baffles a coach. But that is just me

[mbyron]

Do you use a "travel" signal for backcourt violations? Oy.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Besides, his hygiene should have nothing to do with the play, we being completely objective and all.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

I think it's a terrible reason to call a foul and even worse as an explanation to a coach or player. If all of the people in the gym can see that the ball was blocked cleanly, calling a foul for body contact is not going to be accepted.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I think it's a terrible reason to call a foul and even worse as an explanation to a coach or player.

I disagree. If a defender is jumping toward a shooter and makes advantageous body-to-body contact, how relevant is it that the defender's hand blocked the ball?

Sometimes, partisan folks become myopic and only see the blocked shot, without looking at the whole picture.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I disagree. If a defender is jumping toward a shooter and makes advantageous body-to-body contact, how relevant is it that the defender's hand blocked the ball?

Sometimes, partisan folks become myopic and only see the blocked shot, without looking at the whole picture.

Bainsey,
If you are already committed to a belief on this, then why did you ask for our opinions?
I merely gave you advice which I have found to work for me. If you don't like it, then don't follow it. You may certainly do as you wish when you are officiating.

Also, your response is not the typical play that I was envisioning.
Most plays do not involve a hockey-style body check followed by the player blocking the shot (yes, that's a foul), rather far more common is the player first swatting away the ball and then causing some contact with the body.
If you consistently call that a foul, you won't advance very far from what I've seen.