Clean Block or a Foul?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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."

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole for lunch.

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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...)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Ack

I stand corrected.

Read it earlier, didn't see it.

Someone has tampered with my book.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

because he is coming forward at a rate faster than the defender. Its physics.

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

[Kelvin green]

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!

[ballgame99]

part of my confusion is that most on this board agreed that this defender was NOT vertical and therefore fouled the shooter.


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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

part of my confusion is that most on this board agreed that this defender was NOT vertical and therefore fouled the shooter.


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 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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Then the OP play comes on here and the answers just seem to be so contradictory.

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!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

part of my confusion is that most on this board agreed that this defender was NOT vertical and therefore fouled the shooter.

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.

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

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

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.......