I see the defender jumping back and to his right, towards the lead official.

Thats what I saw too, more importantly, I saw dude get his shot REjected before any body contact took place.

If we have to use a Cathetometer to determine if and how a defender is going forward, then we really need to pass on that play. I see a offensive player that was coming forward and got his shot blocked and would have made contact with the defender regardless of what the defender did on this play. And because of that fact, the contact is totally incidental. The contact did not prevent the player from landing normally than he would have or prevent him from playing in the game. When someone blocks your shot, you tend to be off balance as you were trying to avoid the block in the first place. This would be a JV call to a foul on this particular play.

Peace

Absoultely, and if the defender were in his phone booth, we'd have a charge or nothing, though it's difficult to go with nothing considering the amount of contact here. Since the defender is indeed moving into the shooter, the burden of advantageous contact lies with him.

We ARE talking about #0 white, right?

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one bainsey.

Not only was he moving into the defender, he clearly moved the defender back, and continued to move forward himself after the contact as well.

I know none of my college supervisors would be happy with me if I called a foul on this play. Back in my 2nd season of college ball I believe the words one of my supervisors used on me when I worked a game with 2 officials who had D3 Final Four on their resumes was "high school calls" when differentiating my call selection from theirs. :o

1. I don't have the defender moving into the shooter.
2. The NCAA RA rules currently make no mention/exception/allowance for a player blocking or attempting to block a shot.
3. The key in my mind, and what I was driving at, is what JRut and a couple of others mentioned briefly, and what I asked APG: That, in this play, the official needs to determine if the contact is illegal, as specifically mentioned in the RA rules - because this secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position in the RA - regardless of what they do after they establish there (i.e. all of the verticality/clean block up top discussion), or if it was incidental. That's why I posed the question of same situation, but defender never leaves the ground, and the shooter still ends up on the floor like they do in the film clip.

We (I think) all understand/know that a play where the defender establishes their guarding position in the RA and then contact occurs with the defender in/above the RA that results in both players hitting the ground will be a blocking foul (flopping/atypical situations aside). What I'm asking is when the defender doesn't hit the ground, or get seriously displaced, but the shooter does, what should we have?

Edit for this coach discussion with official after my play:
Coach: "HOW IS THAT A NOT A FOUL?"
Official: "THE DEFENDER DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, COACH."
Coach: "THE DEFENDER CANNOT ESTABLISH LEGAL GUARDING POSITION THERE! SO DOESN'T THAT MAKE HIM ILLEGAL WHEN CONTACT HAPPENS WITH MY SHOOTER?"
Official: "I HAD ONLY INCIDENTAL CONTACT THERE, COACH."
Coach: "THAT'S A HE** OF A LOT OF INCIDENTAL CONTACT THAT RESULTS IN MY AIRBORNE SHOOTER LANDING ON HIS A** UNDER THE BASKET!"
Official: "................"

I suppose the important thing is that we ask the right questions, i.e., verticality, hindering, etc.

That said, I've been ignoring the sideline camera, because we never get that look, but from that view, it seems that #0 White jumps into the shooter laterally. Of course, a defender can move laterally, but wouldn't jumping into the shooter from that direction result in a blocking foul? If not, why not?

I think I found the crux. A high school official is probably all I'll ever be.

I would not call this in a HS game. But then again I do think there is a difference between what only HS guys do compared to officials that have experience with other levels and what they will call.

Peace

Maybe I can shed a little light on bainsey's position. Once upon a time, I would've easily called the foul on the defender, because I was watching the offensive player all the way to the basket, saw contact with the defender, and the offensive player went down after the contact. I used to be the one to "sell" that body contact.

Over time, I've evolved my thinking to concentrate a little more on the defender, and to not penalize them if they didn't do anything wrong, by rule. We've concentrated so much on the phrase "protect the shooters" that I think it has unfairly penalized good defense. This play is a good example of the defense not really doing anything wrong which leads to a lot of incidental contact.

bainsey - don't take the "high school official" comment too seriously, but approach it from the standpoint that maybe you can adjust your thinking on plays like this, and maybe it will help your overall play calling and career.

Official: The RA applies to block/charge situations with 2ndary defenders, coach. Not blocked shots...

See post #45 for a clear picture of the intent & purpose of the RA.

Because the shooter got his try wiped clean prior to the contact. And when I ask myself did that contact put the shooter at a disadvantage, I keep coming up with no. By the time the contact took place, the other team already had possession.

So as a man thinketh...

You do realize he landed behind the spot he jumped from don't you?

1. I'm enjoying this discussion, and 2. I think this was a good no-call in this game
 

but,
I don't know of any rule support that backs up that statement. For me, as I'm reading the rules and AR's, it comes down to either the contact was incidental, or the contact was illegal.