Good block?
 

In HS, how would you call this?

Video: Sasha Pavlovic completely erases Sebastian Telfair - Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

Looks like the official wanted to call block, but then changed his mind.

I probably would of ruled a good block and the rest incidental contact.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vcgWuXf_bag" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm not saying I'd be right, but I'd most likely rule a foul on this play. A defender can't simply run through an airborne shooter just because the try itself is over.

Um, people, you do realize that you're discussing what is a foul in the NBA, don't you?

If you do figure it out, please let everybody else in the world know.

Nah, using NBA players to illustrate what I think is a foul in an NFHS game. Our association does it all the time with college plays, even though on some of them the rules are different.

I feel pretty dang confident in saying that's not a foul in the NBA. I've seen the play more than enough to see that it doesn't warrant a call at that level.

If you didn't notice, the OP said to imagine you were adjudicating under NFHS rules.

HS: Tough one. My first instinct, at full speed, was to leave it alone...defender looked to be pretty vertical to me. Arms straight up when he made the block. Without the benefit of the replay, I likely would have swallowed the whistle on the foul and simply called out-of-bounds.

On the replay, at the last second, defender lowers his arm after swatting ball away and comes across defenders head. Gotta be a foul in HS. This is a good argument for making sure you watch the ENTIRE PLAY develop.


NBA: Anyones guess.

I do know these facts about the play.

B never had LGP.
A was airborne before B was.
After the airborne contact, A's body was directed in a different direction and subsequently returned to the floor in an unbalanced way leading him to fall to the floor.

Foul.

Good block and move on. ;)

I am more surprised that Telfair is still in the league.

Peace

Great play, black ball OB.

One of the biggest presentations we had this year was from a Hall of Famer in our association that is a former NBA official (retired in about the last two years) and is a current evaluator when anyone comes to this town to work a game. He used NBA plays to illustrate fouls and violations. It was one of the best presentations we had all year. And for one we talked about the same rules and similar philosophies without much debate.

Peace

The fact that B was vertical is completely irrelevant since B didn't have LGP and B was moving into A.

B made contact before the block.

In HS, foul.

+1

Foul. Contact changed speed/direction of shooter. Clean up top, dirty down low.

The fact that the defender's body went toward the guard and he is responsible for the contact even after the block.

NFHS-Foul
Ncaa Mens-Foul (Unless it is a Big East Crew ;))
NBA-OOB

Two shots..
 

Foul.

Rufus nailed it.

These are the kind of fouls some people hate, because they believe the play is over once the ball is away. Sometimes I wish there were a more specific rule for plays like these, to get everyone on the same page.

It is real simple. Call what is expected in your area. That is what I am going to do. This is not a foul for me at any level, not with the players I see.

Peace

+1 I'll call this a foul any day!

How about posting a clip of what you would call a foul! You must reff in the Army or for the Navy Seals!!

Foul any day of the week.

Lets see. The ball has been blocked before any contact occurs. Neither player then has an immediate play on a ball that is going to be dead anyway. Contact to not clearly and immediately disadvantage anyone, since the shot has already been blocked and ball is on its way to the third row anyway. I wouldn't say contact like this is going to lead to rough play, . . . I've got no foul.

A has a right to not have to land on his head.

In my college conferences my supervisors would not want a foul called on this play.

In HS, if I were in position to see the hit to the head I would call a foul. Would not call a foul at either level for the body contact.

He also has the right to remain silent, right to positive learning environment, and a vast array of others . . . these don't mean that how he lands because of contact (after the ball is on its way out of bounds that doesn't disadvantage him or his team) needs to be called a foul. He could try out for the cheerleading team if how he lands may/may not incur a foul.

I do not have to prove anything to you. It is not a foul at the levels I work. If you want to call that, go right ahead. But you will be suspect if you call that where I work and not expect some body contact on blocked shots. Never been reprimanded for not calling this a foul.

Peace

OOB. Black ball.

With this much contact it is not a stretch to call a foul even if the contact was after the ball is completely out of play, which it clearly was not in the OP.

Foul
 

Good block, but i would not argue with anyone if they call it a foul. One of those judgment calls.

You're right you don't have to prove anything to me. I only reff HS V all the way down to 3-4 grade, not varsity elementary, just third grade and fourth grade. If I passed on that foul in any kind of HS game I would be reprimanded for not making this call.

OK. :p

Peace

Might call the foul, but only due to the arm hitting the head. But I would have no issues with those that don't have a whistle for a foul.

Rut...that is because you are getting NBA philosophies at your NFHS meetings.;)

While I do understand the reasoning behind not calling the foul - (discounting the contact on the head) the contact didn't cause the blocked shot, and neither player was going to retrieve the ball before going OOB - would it make a difference if there was another defender standing right along the endline, and they managed to catch the ball before it went OOB? Now the ball remains live, and one team has a 5-on-4 until the player who was knocked OOB gets up and rejoins the play. Does that change anyone's opinion from a no-call to a foul?

There you go, getting logical again, M&M.

By the way, thought I'd finally get to see you Sunday ... was watching the Super Bowl and during one of the commercials I went to grab something to eat and my wife called out, "Hey, look, there's that M&M Guy again." No striped shirt, though. :D

Wrong. Everything someone does is not about the NBA. I do not see this called in Men's basketball.

Peace

No it does not change anything I feel about the play. The player fell because he had a defender block his shot. Not necessarily because of contact afterward. Players fall and we do not call fouls all the time. That is not the reason to call a foul or not call a foul.

Peace

It sucks - I get no residuals from those commercials either... :D

...how about in BOYS basketball? ;)

What do I work the most of?

Peace

Never knew you were so, uh, young looking for having all those years in officiating, too. Or that you were from Detroit?

Well, then maybe we saw the play differently; I thought the block was clean, but the body contact forced the player to fall OOB. If you saw it differently, I'm not going to argue as it was outside my area. ;)

Of course players fall all the time without a foul needing to be called. I was simply trying to address some of the comments where it was pointed out since the block was clean, and the ball was going OOB anyway, there's no advantage gained from the contact, so it's a no-call. I'm just wondering how how long one should wait in determining when there really is an advantage from the contact before blowing the whistle?

I have no idea...Men's (NCAA) or Boy's (NFHS)?

I'm just having fun with ya Rut...many pretty good officials here said they would call this play a foul in NFHS. I tend to agree...of course we have the benefit of instant replay and not just a bang bang reaction during the game.

If you were to pass on this play in one of our HS games...I probably wouldn't think twice about it.

I'm with you on this one. A play like this is only going to happen in a boys game and as the L, I'm merely calling the OOB.

When someone tries to dunk the ball and a defender comes and stops them, they are not going to land perfectly most of the time. The force that made the shooter fall in my opinion had little to do with body contact created by the defender.

Peace

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Sounds kinda like a description I heard on tv many years ago. As long as you get the ball, (first) you are entitled to take as much of the player as you want while you're at it.



They were describing what constitutes roughing the kicker.

That is great, but we are not talking about football. And I never said I would never call a foul on a player that is trying to block a ball. There are a lot of block attempts that are going to have a foul call from me. But when a block is made I am going to consider the player the momentum of the shooter and what the contact with that ball did. There are almost always going to contact on blocked shot attempts. Each of us has to determine how much and the level we work is going to dictate that. Just like it dictates other fouls we call or do not call. Not sure why there are some folks thing we all have to agree on these plays.

Peace

imho, good block, incidental contact, ball OOB to black...

the two most exciting plays in basketball are the dunk and the block shot. i'm giving a little extra leeway in this instance because of the nature of this play. additionally, if you think about it - we generally allow a little more contact the closer we get to the basket (that's just a reality of how we officiate the game).

i understand if other officials have a foul on this, but I for one, am not blowing my whistle for a foul.

btw, after watching the replay again, the official gives no sign of wanting to call a foul....he's just simply moving to get out of the way of the ball.

To each his own. If anything, I would probably allow more contact away from the basket when a ball is deflected out of bounds.

It's NBA, remember. That doesn't mean a lot to most of us here. In the other current thread where the guys goes from the 3 point line without a dribble to dunk, the NCAA guys there show no sign of wanting to call a travel, either.

What does it being a play in the NBA have to do with it? I agree with jeffpea's statement and it looks clearly to me he was just trying to get out of the way of the ball. Even if he was thinking about calling a foul, you wouldn't see an NBA official come out with a blocking prelim on this type of play.

NBA rules and standards for applying rules seem to vary considerably from most NFHS games I see.

They are? Maybe to those that are here, but not to everyone that officiates basketball.

Peace

Okay, but you said that in response to jeffpea saying he though the official was getting out of the way. I don't get what the play being in the NBA has to do with that.

I don't know what getting out of the way has to do with it. I would get out of the way, too. I thought the point was that the official did not seem at all inclined to consider a foul call. In the NBA, this did not surprise. In high school, I thought most would call the foul.

We could always have a poll.

What's your point?

The point is that a lot of people in the officiating communtity do not dismiss everything that happens in the NBA like people here always seem to do. That is the point.

Peace

Thanks for the feedback, Jeff and Rich.

See Rich's comment.

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.

I love threads like this!
 

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.

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?

You should re-read his post. He gave examples of contact after the blocked shot that would warrant a foul call.

Yeah, I admittedly quit reading before I should have; but the example given is of a player knocked into the concession stand (essentially). I get his point though (I've engaged in hyperbole to make a point before), that the breaking point is somewhere in the middle.

No I don't believe they are "fair game", but at the same time, as far as legally getting to a ball legally vs. having to go "through" a player to get the block are 2 different scenarios in my opinion. I do believe if you ref the airborne shooter concept too PURELY then you could have unwarranted whistles on plays where they are not needed and you have not allowed a great athletic play, imo. Just one man's view

Question for those who say this is not a foul:

If this same amount of contact occurred, (shooter knocked to the floor) would it be a foul if there was no block? Defender arrived late, shooter changed hands, or whatever?

I dont see how this is comparing apples to apples. you have changed the basic nature of the play from start to finish and applying different standards you are alluding that the outcome or results would be the same.

I'd have to see that play to have a judgement on it. I just know that the play in question is not something my supervisors want a foul call on.

In the revised play, now we know it was because of contact afterward.

Now that there was no block,clean or otherwise, does that change things?

The shot attempt was not altered, and there was no disadvantage in making the attempt, so this play can never be a foul?