I did not have to. I mentioned them as demonstrable evidence that what i saw is correct. Also the Red Avis advertisement in the corner-tunnel at the KU end of the court. Samething, now you see it, now you don't. Visual evidence that what I saw on my first look is correct and confirmed.

Tell me how I am wrong about B1 not going straight-up. Shoot down my evidence instead of shooting me down because I used that same evidence.

Didn't shoot you down. Just disagreed with you...the contact was created by the shooter, imho.

There it is. We all have people to answer to. If you have the same job at two different employers, and Employer B tells you to do it differently than Employer A, you bitter stick with B's instructions.

However, one of those motivations is one I don't like...

In other words, that block was wicked awesome! Anyone who blocks like that can get away with anything during the play.

That's what I'm hearing.

Actually, 4-27 doesn't say that. 4-40 is the one that says that referring to a player running into a blind screen. Not a very good comparison here.

Maybe, but it's not what we're saying.

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole for lunch.

No, that is what you're inferring, it is certainly not what I'm saying. In my view, this contact does not disadvantage either player, is not severe and as a result is incidental. It is a great, athletic play that should not be penalized for marginal contact. If this play happened in any game I would call, I would pass on a whistle.

And I certainly don't use "wicked" as an adverb. Yeck.

LOL I know, that word works much "bettah" with my accent than yours. We have one Texan on our board (an Aggie). I'd cringe if he used "wicked" as a substitute for "very."

Time zones, chief. More like a late-afternoon snack. :D

What you should be hearing is:

That block was wicked awesome! Glad the officials didn't penalize the defender for the shooter flying into him.

(And I had to gag twice in order to type that "wicked awesome" part...)

Maybe you need to go back and read all the articles in 4-27.

Peace

From 4-27:

ART. 2 . . . Contact, which may result when opponents are in equally favorable
positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be
considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

Ack

I stand corrected.

Read it earlier, didn't see it.

Someone has tampered with my book.

So he's responsible for displacing the opponent who had legal guarding position....

I must have missed something
 

I will interject here how I cannot figure that anyone sees defender moving forward. He moves and jump. Watch where he lands if he was moving forward by the nature of physics takes him to another place and the minimal contact did not displace or change his path.

How can you penalize good defense by rewarding bad offense. I too would look to a hit to the head, but beyond that play on!

part of my confusion is that most on this board agreed that this defender was NOT vertical and therefore fouled the shooter.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F0MYKbyhpIQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

but somehow the OP defender WAS vertical. He was able to come from the opposite side of the lane, gather, and transfer all of his momentum to go strait up and maintain his verticality. I don't see it.

The first time I saw the Duke highlight above I thought, man that seems to be splitting hairs to call that a block. What did that guy do wrong? I resigned myself to the fact that I just need to look at these plays differently. Then the OP play comes on here and the answers just seem to be so contradictory.

In this play the defender did not maintain verticality AND this contact that he is responsible for disadvantaged the shooter.

Also as a point of order, this is not a block but illegal use of the hands and arms. That is the case in Fed but I'd be surprised if NCAA is substantially different.

In one, the player jumped up (maybe even slightly forward), blocked an already released ball, then there was contact. At the time of contact, there was no longer a play to be made by the offensive player as the ball was on its way to orbit. No amount of contact was going to hinder the shooter from doing anything.

In this last one, the player stepped forward into the shooter, didn't get the ball at all, and created contact that displaced the shooter while he was trying to shoot....definite disadvantage to the shooter.

ballgame99, you havent got over that L yet?

This play is nothing like the OP play. The defenders arms clearly come out of his vertical plane & down onto the shooters arm, arguably twice. Plus, he got no ball whatsoever. Two different plays, two CCs.

You guys will get em next time!!

There was no arm contact in the OP play we have been talking about. The contact with with the mid-section and with a airborne shooter flying to the basket on a vertical leap of the defender. Also the contact did not displace the shooter. The defender was where they were going to be and the shooter ran into them. Not the same play.

but somehow the OP defender WAS vertical. He was able to come from the opposite side of the lane, gather, and transfer all of his momentum to go strait up and maintain his verticality. I don't see it.

Again these are not the same play. The Duke player might have started vertical at some point, but then put his arms down and hit the shooter's arm. The OP there was no contact with the shooter's arm. Then to add to the OP, the ball was blocked first and the remaining contact was incidental because it did not prevent the shooter from doing anything they would not have normally done. I do not even think the Duke player made any contact with the ball where we could then let some other minor contact go. The play you just showed is a foul all the way. There is not even consideration to incidental with an illegal defender.

Peace

I think you need a better understanding of verticality. The Duke play is a great example of a player who does not maintain verticality.

A "better" understanding or an understanding of verticality period?

An official who does not see the obvious difference between these two plays is an official who needs some serious help. I say that honestly and not to be derogatry but wow.......

On this play, I don't see a single instant where the defender has gained LGP. He's constantly moving sideways, one way or the other, and twice leans into the shooter (the uncalled first time more blatantly than the called 2nd time, IMHO).

But he is facing the ball handler so he had to gain LGP.

Peace

He had LGP almost the entire time. Moving has little to do with LGP. The only time, when a player has LGP, that movement becomes illegal is when, at the time of contact, the defender was moving toward the opponent....which is the case in the Duke clip (along with not being vertical...arms extended over opponent).

NFHS quote...but the rules are the same...

The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

Except for ONE of his steps, they were ALL toward the opponent (one was even followed by a reasonably hard chest bump while offense was not even moving toward the defender yet).

That contact was incidental and did not gain an advantage. In fact I think the contact went both ways. If the defender would have planted his feet and taken the contact he might have had a chance to draw a player control foul. However he didn't and leaned into the shooter, making contact and creating a clear disadvantage for the shooter. Easy foul call

LGP may be gained while moving towards the defender. The chest bumps are another story, however, as LGP doesn't give that right to the defender.

Good discussion everyone. I have sincerely enjoyed the debate and deserved most jabs thrown at me. I still think the defender committed a foul, but I do at least see the other side of the argument now.

Hope everyone has a good conclusion to their seasons.

I'm not stupid, thank you very little.

Yes, I agree. But that is not relevant. He still has LGP. The only time forward movement becomes a problem is at the moment of contact. Until then, the direction of movement is not a factor in determining LGP.

The ones complaining about this play in the OP are.

I have still yet to see this foul on Pressey that they are so upset about. He got called for a hand check or a hold against a dribbler that sent a KU player to the line late in OT that sealed the win. The people I have been talking to keep complaining about consistency and how it should have been a no-call on Pressey if this was a no-call. I'm trying to explain to them that plays are judged individually, but I'm sure it will go in one ear and out the other.

Watch this video from the stands and pause at about :58 when Robinson jumps. If that isn't verticality, I don't know what is. (I know the camera is shaky...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRQHMrZOJU

The hand-checking foul on the drive was an easy call. The imaginary whistle in my head went off as the play was live on my TV.

Exactly.

Peace