I Guess That You Just Had To Be There ...
 

A few months ago, Forum members became involved in a great debate as to whether, or not, a foul should be called when a shot is cleanly blocked, and then contact occurs with the airborne shooter. Some were adamant that a foul should not be called because the contact, if not excessive, did not affect the shooter because the shot was already cleanly blocked. Others were just as adamant that officials should protect the airborne shooter at all costs. As one who only officiates high school games, I fall into the "always protect the airborne shooter" category, but I am open to other opinions from those that officiate college games in "Rome".

I see. I learned early on through a college mentor of mine that while an offensive players best move is a dunk, a defenders is a block. If the contact is after the block and it is clean then where can that shot go? Usually no where. So if contact occurs marginally afterwards then why penalize a clean block by the defense?

I do recognize the other side of the argument. Though I believe we can protect them too much.

My personal feeling is block before contact is going to be a no call unless the contact after the block has happened is excessive or unnecessary. Tough to disadvantage a shooter when his/her shot is over and on the way to the floor.

I understand the need to protect the airborne shooter, but I'm not sure what the are being protected from. If they are being protected from a slap on the wrist or a bump they could easily absorb maybe they should be in a different sandbox with less contact: tennis, chess, swimming . . .

General rule of thumb if it is contact i would accept as inadvertant and able to be handled on the subway or line at the grocery store I don't need to protect kids from it.

If you want to protect the shooter I get that, just make sure you are protecting them not rewarding them for getting airborne. I also think a lot of this probably has to do with the nature of the basketball games you officiate. If you do a lot of games with larger athletes, where blocks &/ dunks are a regular occurrence and kids are used to playing this way you probably see less calls here as kids manage. The tough ones come in games where you've got 1 or 2 players who can make these sorts of plays but the rest of players strength, body control, game in general cannot handle this sort of play.

My position has been shared many times here.
 

I got nothing on the block. ;)

Peace

It was certainly worth looking at but ultimately, neither do I.

What sent the shooter to the floor was probably just as much the block itself...the force through the ball....as it was body contact.

I don't have a foul on this call at any point. Ball has been blocked contact (imo) is not enough to send the player to the ground - force of block and sales job to get a foul did. The ball has been blocked, contact after that is not enough to disadvantage the the other player any further (particularly in this instance when the game is now over).

Pick A Prize From The Top Shelf ...
 

Bingo. I've never seen this situation described in this manner on the Forum before, but such a situation certainly could occur.

As Panther has said himself/herself, I wouldn't have a call at any point in the game on this play. The defender blocked the shot, the shot was not getting off on this play, and the contact was after the block. Fair game.

Not all contact is a foul, whatever you saw before the block in my opinion was not advantageous toward the. defense. So your saying to send the player to the line by calling the foul because of the score and time left?

You're saying that the fact that this is the road team taking the shot is important to the call that you would make in this circumstance? And this is something that you would make a point to be conscious of at the time?

I can't speak for him, but that is how I read it. Now, how many of us have never, ever officiated a blow out and called more fouls on the team winning by a large margin? If someone can say they have never done something like that, on any level, then I guess that official could have a problem with what is being said.

My Two NFHS Cents ...
 

Same here, if this was in my high school game, boys, or girls. The ball was certainly cleanly blocked up on top, but then the defender's follow-through practically takes the head off the shooter, followed by the defender's inertia carrying her into the shooter's body, causing the shooter to fall to the floor, all while the shooter was still airborne, and, by the book, still in the act of shooting. And, yes I know that the "shot" itself was not affected by any illegal contact since the ball had already been released when the illegal contact occurred. It's still a two shot in the act of shooting foul.

In high school games, in my little corner of Connecticut, this is a foul almost every time. I'm calling this foul at the beginning of a game, at the end of a game, in a blow out game, in a close game, in a high school varsity game, in a Catholic middle school game, in a boys game, in a girls game, with cordial coaches, with hostile coaches, on the road, or at home (whatever that means, as an official, I'm never at home?). And none of my colleagues, and only few coaches, would question my call.

If college, or professional, officials want to call this differently, I have no problem with their interpretation.

Sue Bird has what Belichick would diagnose as Bernie Kosar Disease.

You're saying cutting the losing team some slack in a blowout is the same thing as deciding whether to call a last second foul that could affect which team wins based on which team is home and which is the visitor?

Big of you.