The joys of my evening

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I really don't care to debate this further with the belted one who scabs for $31 a game.......

Now you sound like a coach. You don't like the way things are going so you resort to making a snide personal remark. Classy.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Now you sound like a coach. You don't like the way things are going so you resort to making a snide personal remark. Classy.

Just as classy as using another thread and then using my remarks out of context.

Besides, you are using (as I mentioned earlier) the time-honored coach tactic of saying "if this isn't a foul, how can this be a foul" in the process.

What's good for the goose and all that....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Just as classy as using another thread and then using my remarks out of context.

Besides, you are using (as I mentioned earlier) the time-honored coach tactic of saying "if this isn't a foul, how can this be a foul" in the process.

What's good for the goose and all that....

Agreed.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Besides, you are using (as I mentioned earlier) the time-honored coach tactic of saying "if this isn't a foul, how can this be a foul" in the process.

There's a huge difference. The coach in question saw the plays. We often say to ourselves, "If he couldn't see the difference, there's no way I can explain it."

Here, nobody saw the play in question. If you want something understood, you have no choice but to explain. We had two plays (one with video, one without) where an airborne shooter was knocked to the floor. One you said was not a foul. The other you not only said was a foul, you said it was absurd not to protect the airborne shooter to the floor. I asked what the difference was. I thought I was asking a legitimate question, rather than prolonging a previous argument.......this time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Here, nobody saw the play in question. If you want something understood, you have no choice but to explain. We had two plays (one with video, one without) where an airborne shooter was knocked to the floor. One you said was not a foul. The other you not only said it was a foul, you said it was absurd not to protect the airborne shooter to the floor. I asked what the difference was. I thought I was asking a legitimate question, rather than prolonging a previous argument.......this time.

One play that we saw on video we have a player that blocked the ball on a shot. The play that I am reading here there was no blocked shot. Unless I missed something, where contact takes place first without any contact with the ball that is totally different. And I love the comment you say as if someone is if a shooter gets knocked to the floor there must be a foul. Unless you have never worked a boy's game, shooters get knocked to the floor all the time. That does not mean it was a foul or that the defender did anything wrong or illegal. There are times when a shooter causes all the contact and fall the floor. Now if you are one of those officials that call everything in the benefit of the shooter no matter what, then that is why we have POEs every year talking about why we should not call fouls on the defense and we must review things like LGP and even Verticality. Basketball players do fall and nothing should be called sometimes. Nowhere does it say every time a shooter falls there must be a foul or that the defender did something illegal. But again you keep asking as if those rules are to only protect the shooter from falling.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

One play that we saw on video we have a player that blocked the ball on a shot. The play that I am reading here there was no blocked shot.

That's what I read also. In the first play, the explanation as I understand it, was that the contact was incidental to a block which was (I agreed) clean on top. The contact, which came after the block, did not affect the shot, so therefore was not a foul. But in the second play, there is a missed block attempt. The shooter is subsequently contacted on his way down and is also knocked to the floor. Like the first play, the shot was not affected. Why is the second play a foul while the first is not?

And I love the comment you say as if someone is if a shooter gets knocked to the floor there must be a foul.

I believe what I said was that when a defender who is actively making a play knocks an airborne shooter to the floor, never say always, but this is pretty much gonna be a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That's what I read also. In the first play, the explanation as I understand it, was that the contact was incidental to a block which was (I agreed) clean on top. The contact, which came after the block, did not affect the shot, so therefore was not a foul. But in the second play, there is a missed block attempt. The shooter is subsequently contacted on his way down and is also knocked to the floor. Like the first play, the shot was not affected. Why is the second play a foul while the first is not?

All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul. I know I do not call fouls on screens that are legally set and the player being screened falls to the ground hard as a result. So why is this play so hard to understand. One play had a clean block (which means they got to the ball first and legally) and the other the player made contact, then made the block. Again, I am not going to continue to argue this with you, but just will say that if you call that in the places I work, you will not be working very long. And those that usually call the game like this, do not work with a lot of tall or athletic players. And I almost never see an experienced official call these plays fouls but when I read this board someone like you claims we have to call a foul on these "becasue the shooter got knocked to the floor." Like there are never shooters that fall to the floor and we have never seen a foul not called.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I believe what I said was that when a defender who is actively making a play knocks an airborne shooter to the floor, never say always, but this is pretty much gonna be a foul.

Well I do not have to work with you, so call what you like.

Peace

[Rob1968]

J Rut
QUOTE:All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul.

Please, help me understand your philosophy. When I read 4-27-2, and 4-27-3, neither seems to fit a scenario in which the contact, "even though it may be severe" would be caused by a defender trying to block a shot; or if that contact appears to be caused by only one of the the players involved - "...when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements..." "...contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."
It does seem that contact which causes an airbourne opponent to be unable to maintain balance, upon returning to the floor more fits a description of illegal contact.
(I do a lot of mentoring of newer/younger officials in my area, and am always looking for the philosophy/wording that will best help them to understand a valid "no-call".)
Thanks in advance.