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

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.

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

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

Well the "push" signal means "charging" as well. So if there was a block attempt that I did not consider legal, then I would use the "push" signal. Not sure why I would use the "block" signal at all in a case like that. Then again that is me.

Peace

Actually, you're right. I misspoke; generally I use the push/charge signal. Occasionally, a blocking foul is involved, though.

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

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.

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.

It's a discussion board, NV. I'm discussing. Besides, who says I'm committed? It's all a suggestion.

Anyway, I think you're right that we're envisioning different things. The example you provide where the swat was clearly before the contact is very different from mine. Your example would seldom be a foul; mine would more frequently. No argument there.

Still, I find that, when there's clear advantageous body contact during a blocked shot, some are too keyed in on the swat that they miss the whole picture, hence my suggested phrase, "The block was clean, the body was not." It's a way of saying, "I saw the block. I'm not calling contact there." A little succinct clarity never hurts.

Of course, you'd think they'd figure it all out when you signal a push or a block, but when people see a blocked shot, the whistle causes an immediate reaction where you don't see (or don't want to see) the corresponding signal.

I agree with Nevada on this. I think that is a bad explanation.

If you work a lot of boy's basketball and this is a common call, then I think you will get run out of that level quickly. This is really the case when you have really tall and physical players that will have opponents bounce off of them on a regular basis. Maybe that works with girl's basketball (as I do not call those games), but on the boy's side this will get you killed.

Peace

A good rule of thumb I learned early on is this: You can't penalize a player for being 6" taller or 100 lbs heavier. If an 80 lb player runs into a 280 player they are gonna bounce off, sometimes to hilarious results!
(See "funny" thread)

Another good rule of thumb is to determine which happened first.

If the block happened before the body contact then the body contact is going to have to be pretty excessive and obviously the defenses fault before I'm calling a foul.

If the defense is causing contact with the body prior to the shot it had better be fairly minor if they then end up blocking a shot as a result to not have it be a foul call.

I see you've worked middle school.

Re-learned in summer ball last night
 

No-calling this does not go over well with parents in JVG games. :) We had a couple of great blocks with some incidental body contact and you'd have thought we'd assaulted the shooters ourselves.

Had a play on a fast break where my partner no-called it. I was trail and didn't see anything. Coach goes through all three of us, when he gets to me, I just respond, "Coach, I couldn't see it from here." Fan behind me: "I could see it from here." I laughed to myself. Okay, not completely to myself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The very reason I stay away from that kind of basketball all together.

Peace

I thought of you briefly, Rut. :) Especially when I overheard the coaches talking about how few fouls we were calling. Frankly, I don't think we passed on any actual fouls; nothing that would get called at the JV level anyway. Perhaps MS games are called differently. :)

Fixed it for ya. ;)