Good block?

[Welpe]

Out of curiosity...this seems like quite a bit of contact against an airborne shooter. BNR, JRut...are you guys saying that this should be ignored because the shot is blocked?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Out of curiosity...this seems like quite a bit of contact against an airborne shooter. BNR, JRut...are you guys saying that this should be ignored because the shot is blocked?

All contact on an airborne shooter is not illegal. And when a player blocks their shot and stops their momentum when they are airborne, I am not calling a foul just because there is contact. Just like if a player steals the ball and there is contact after the ball is stolen, I am not calling a foul when contact before was legal. Again, read 4-27. If the contact was illegal before the block, different story.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Out of curiosity...this seems like quite a bit of contact against an airborne shooter. BNR, JRut...are you guys saying that this should be ignored because the shot is blocked?

The initial contact is all ball up top. This doesn't absolve the defender of a foul (I would call one if I thought the defender solidly landed on top of the shooter, for example), but I'll let a bit more subsequent contact down below go when the block is that clean up top.

Obviously some people here agree and some disagree -- but in a higher level boys game I feel I'm expected to let that one go.

[Adam]

I agree that more contact is allowed after the shot, but in this particular play I see an airborne shooter solidly knocked to the floor by the contact for which the defender is clearly responsible. Like I said before, though, I may be wrong on this play.

[just another ref]

Question: For any of you who say this is not a foul because, paraphrasing now, it was incidental to the block, the block was clean up top, the ball was already out of play so no disadvantage to the shooter,etc. How do you guys ever have a foul on a shot that goes in?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Question: For any of you who say this is not a foul because, paraphrasing now, it was incidental to the block, the block was clean up top, the ball was already out of play so no disadvantage to the shooter,etc. How do you guys ever have a foul on a shot that goes in?

It has nothing to do with the ball going in the basket. If the shot attempt is altered by the contact, if the player is put at a disadvantage in making the shot attempt, I'll call the foul. I have no problem having an "and one" situation as by the time the ball goes in, I've already decided that there was a foul and I'm calling it.

In this play, it's clean up top and heading out of bounds. They are both affected by the block -- the shooters momentum is changed by that block. Yes, the defender hits him coming down. But I just don't feel it's sever enough at that level to get. Other reasonable voices vary.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It has nothing to do with the ball going in the basket. If the shot attempt is altered by the contact, if the player is put at a disadvantage in making the shot attempt, I'll call the foul.

You don't think the contact altered the shot in the OP?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You don't think the contact altered the shot in the OP?

The initial contact was all ball on ball -- a good block. By the time the defender's body makes contact, the ball's heading out of bounds.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Question: For any of you who say this is not a foul because, paraphrasing now, it was incidental to the block, the block was clean up top, the ball was already out of play so no disadvantage to the shooter,etc. How do you guys ever have a foul on a shot that goes in?

Because making a play on the ball first always matters to me. And it does with most officials at that level I observe. Now you do not have to agree and I am not trying to convince anyone here to do what they feel is right. Just like when I watch girl's games and I see officials call all kinds of fouls I do not feel should be. There is less contact on many plays I see and I wonder what the standard should be. It seems to me like the standard is contact with any airborne shooter at any time. When we start calling player control fouls on defenders that are airborne on a regular basis, and then talk to me about why this should be a foul.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Out of curiosity...this seems like quite a bit of contact against an airborne shooter. BNR, JRut...are you guys saying that this should be ignored because the shot is blocked?

See Rich's comment.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

...
Obviously some people here agree and some disagree -- but in a higher level boys game I feel I'm expected to let that one go.

Actually the first time I learned this lesson was my very first BIG TIME high school basketball game about 6 years ago on a play between 2 future D1 ball players. And the observer who told me I should not have called it a foul was a female.

[referee99]

This forum is such a fantastic resource on so many levels, but its threads like this that reveal which forum contributors you would want to work a game with.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by referee99

This forum is such a fantastic resource on so many levels, but its threads like this that reveal which forum contributors you would want to work a game with.

I like this post. It says you fall into one of the two schools of thought but doesn't give anything away.

[btaylor64]

Guys I have been following this debate since the thread started and it was very civilized and well debated imo....

My personal opinion is that this is not a foul, as the defender blocks the ball virtually with his forearm and the block is just slightly prior to the contact which tells me he gets to the ball LEGALLY before any contact. Similar plays like these are called and should be called differently imo or should I say judge each one of these plays on its own merits, bc had the defender obviously contacted the off. player before the block, that now makes it a foul or as another example, had the defender contacted the off. player sooo hard and smashed him into the stanchion or sent him beyond the first row and he shot off the defender's body like a cannon, that is some of the visual cues that tell me the contact was too much to ignore even with a blocked shot. But the off. player falls just about a foot off the floor and the contact doesnt look to be, imo, too great for a foul.

Can I see this being a foul in a HS game.... yes... I would prefer it wasn't but I wouldn't question an official for making it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Guys I have been following this debate since the thread started and it was very civilized and well debated imo....

My personal opinion is that this is not a foul, as the defender blocks the ball virtually with his forearm and the block is just slightly prior to the contact which tells me he gets to the ball LEGALLY before any contact. Similar plays like these are called and should be called differently imo or should I say judge each one of these plays on its own merits, bc had the defender obviously contacted the off. player before the block, that now makes it a foul or as another example, had the defender contacted the off. player sooo hard and smashed him into the stanchion or sent him beyond the first row and he shot off the defender's body like a cannon, that is some of the visual cues that tell me the contact was too much to ignore even with a blocked shot. But the off. player falls just about a foot off the floor and the contact doesnt look to be, imo, too great for a foul.

Can I see this being a foul in a HS game.... yes... I would prefer it wasn't but I wouldn't question an official for making it.

I understand there are different opinions (it would take a fool to deny it), and differing opinions on this have been expressed by people I respect. Let me just as one question that may come across as over-the-top.

Are you saying that an airborne shooter is fair game if his shot has been blocked before contact?