When a block is a foul
 

I've called fouls on blocks, because I see contact. Am I wrong, it seems that just because there was a block all bets are off.

Are we talking blocked shots or block/charge situations?

Blocked shots:
80/20 is a good point of reference.
Some ppl say 80% ball & 20% body is a play on.

Did the defender get body 1st then the ball or vice-versa?

Its definately a play to have a patient whistle on!

I would not say all bets are off. If I have a block and I contact the ball first, why would I want to call something simply because there is contact? The objective of the game is to play ball and if a defender accomplishes that, I think philosophy wise it is not a good idea to call fouls. Contact is a part of the game and would most plays that allow contact on a block as long as the contact with the ball was first.

Peace

If you see significant contact before the block, call it.

If the ball is blocked already when significant contact happens, think about what you have... you have a loose ball, no one has possession... and you have two guys up in the air making contact with one another - neither has right-of-way, so to speak... so unless contact was malicious after the block, you have nothing.

A lot of times, newer officials call a foul when the defender contacts the shooter's arm after the shot has been blocked. (I know I did.) The shot's over at this point, so a lot of times the contact should be ruled incidental.

I disagree, slightly, I think. The shooter still has the "right of way," but 99% of the time the contact isn't creating any sort of advantage. If, however, the contact knocks the shooter to the floor, it should probably be a foul. Malice isn't required, IMO. :D

I'll go +1 with an *. If the defenders arm follows thru and strikes the face or head, you might think about a foul. (But I am sure that can fit under the few times contace should not be ruled incidental :D)

I would have to disagree with you here. We always preach protect the shooter and if there is significant contact, your words, after the block we still have to protect the shooter until they return to the floor. IMO we miss a lot of fouls on the defense and the offense when the shot is blocked. The key word being significant and not incidental contact. I think we miss a ton of offense fouls when a defender is set to take a charge and another defender blocks the shot.

I honestly do not like that standard at all. That means that if a player falls hard to the ground, we penalize the defense just because the player fell hard (based on that logic). The force of the actual block might be the reason they fell, not that the defender did so illegally. I believe the incidental rule was written for plays like this. And honestly I do not call a foul or not call a foul based on the severity of the contact. What happened first is my standard. And no I am not talking about a cheap or purposely violent play which has other ramifications. But on a simply block, they get the ball first, I am letting the rest of the contact go.

Peace

Is it always?

Yep, even if the shooter is still airborne, the situation discussed involves contact happening when the try itself is over due to the block.

Can it still be a foul? Sure, if the contact knocks an airborne shooter to the floor, it's very possible.

Does the player have to hit the floor to qualify or would displacement resulting in something less than falling to the floor also be a foul in that situation?

I guess this is one of those plays where you have to see it to call it or no call it.

Obviously he doesn't have to hit the floor, significant displacement could also qualify. But I have yet to see a shooter get hit hard enough do get displaced and not fall to the floor. :D

I have yet to see a clean block where I feel I should call it. ;)

Peace