Clean Block or a Foul?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But if there is contact sufficient for a block/charge foul, it will be a block due to the RA, even if his purpose was to block the shot.

That said....no foul....outstanding block.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong...couldn't one argue that if a player is attempting to block the ball, then he's not trying to get an initial legal position for the purpose of drawing a player control/charging foul? I thought the interpretation would be similar to the NBA's in that the RA doesn't apply in the NBA when a player makes a legitimate attempt to defend the shot (and jumping vertically would definitely fit that bill).

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

APG - Help me understand your point by answering these questions. (And I'm not being antagonistic.)

1) Are you suggesting the contact here is not illegal, or is not illegal by virtue of the fact that he was attempting to block the shot?

2) Remove the defender jumping and the shot being actively blocked. Small guard jumping into large post who was at the spot in the RA before the shooter left the ground, and the shooter still ends up where he did in this play because of the contact with the vertical defender. What would your call be then?

1. I thought the play was legal. The offensive player jumps into a defender who alights vertically to block the shot. The block was clean the rest of the contact, IMO, is incidental.

2. That would be a play I would have to see. I'm imagine it being a block since I'm not imagining the player in your scenario attempting to defend the shot.

Again, I thought NCAA's interpretation with regard to the RA was similar to the NBA's in that it didn't apply to a player making a legitimate attempt to block a shot. Apparently I might be incorrect on my interpretation there.

[bainsey]

The arm is clean, but the body is dirty, dirty, dirty!

The view from the end-line camera is clear: The defender comes into the shooter, and is not straight up. I'm sending 1 black to the line for two shots, despite the chorus of boos.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The arm is clean, but the body is dirty, dirty, dirty!

The view from the end-line camera is clear: The defender comes into the shooter, and is not straight up. I'm sending 1 black to the line for two shots, despite the chorus of boos.

I totally disagree that the body contact or the result of the body contact was the fault of the defender. The shooter was coming forward and fell mostly because he ran into a bigger player. At least from my judgment that is almost never a foul on the defender. And if at that level you call that a foul, you will not be around very long from my experience.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I totally disagree that the body contact or the result of the body contact was the fault of the defender. The shooter was coming forward and fell mostly because he ran into a bigger player. At least from my judgment that is almost never a foul on the defender.

Yes, the shooter came forward, but the important piece of this equation is that the defender also lunged forward, hence the blocking foul. I could see your point if the defender remained in his "phone booth," but that wasn't even close.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Yes, the shooter came forward, but the important piece of this equation is that the defender also lunged forward, hence the blocking foul. I could see your point if the defender remained in his "phone booth," but that wasn't even close.

I'm not sure what you're watching, but this play is a great example of sucking on a whistle and ignoring some subsequent contact down low because of the great defensive play up top.

This is the play where some officials will call a foul and sell hard "he got him down low", "body". Don't be one of those officials.

The only thing that made me look twice was whether or not the blockers arm followed through and hit the shooter on the head. If that happened, I'd probably consider calling a foul, depending on how responsible I think the blocker is for that contact.

[Rich]

The art of basketball officiating | Lutz | Wichita Eagle Blogs

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm not sure what you're watching, but this play is a great example of sucking on a whistle and ignoring some subsequent contact down low because of the great defensive play up top.

This is the play where some officials will call a foul and sell hard "he got him down low", "body". Don't be one of those officials.

The only thing that made me look twice was whether or not the blockers arm followed through and hit the shooter on the head. If that happened, I'd probably consider calling a foul, depending on how responsible I think the blocker is for that contact.

Agreed. The big question - which we always ask ourselves - is: did the contact put anyone at a disadvantage? If anything it just "looks bad" because the defender swung his arm down to make the block.

I'm with Rich in terms of a hit to the head. That's the only way on this play I'd consider putting a whistle on it

[JugglingReferee]

Great defense on the blocked shot!


But there was some contact after the shot that may have affected the safe landing that A1 is entitled to.

• If that contact was too severe for you, then call a foul.
• If you believe that A1 deserved a better landing, then call a foul.

B5's right arm on the follow-through struck A1's head/neck area which seemed to knock him off of his safe landing. There was no way A1 was going to land as he did if there was no contact from B5.

I can definitely see calling this a foul in JV. Varsity: perhaps it's 50-50, likely less. I would not expect a call in the NCAA, and there wasn't.

Me personally, I dislike it when there is contact to a player's head. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and I tend to protect shooters more when they are hit in the head.

[twocentsworth]

this is pretty simple....this is incidental contact at the D1 level (you may deem it "contact that warrants a foul" at a different level).


imho, the two best plays in basketball are the dunk and the blocked shot - one should not blow the whistle on incidental contact during such plays.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm not sure what you're watching, but this play is a great example of sucking on a whistle and ignoring some subsequent contact down low because of the great defensive play up top.

Very well. Let's say there was no blocked shot on this play, only the body contact. What would you have then?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Very well. Let's say there was no blocked shot on this play, only the body contact. What would you have then?

Shot was gone, defender was straight up, two reasons not to make a call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Very well. Let's say there was no blocked shot on this play, only the body contact. What would you have then?

The principal of verticality, of course.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Very well. Let's say there was no blocked shot on this play, only the body contact. What would you have then?

Not all body contact with an airborne shooter is a foul on the defender.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Yes, the shooter came forward, but the important piece of this equation is that the defender also lunged forward, hence the blocking foul. I could see your point if the defender remained in his "phone booth," but that wasn't even close.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong...couldn't one argue that if a player is attempting to block the ball, then he's not trying to get an initial legal position for the purpose of drawing a player control/charging foul? I thought the interpretation would be similar to the NBA's in that the RA doesn't apply in the NBA when a player makes a legitimate attempt to defend the shot (and jumping vertically would definitely fit that bill).

Perhaps you could make such an argument if the RA rule considered what a player was trying to do....but it doesn't. It only says a secondary defender can't have LGP while in the RA and any block/charge contact will be a block.

It was written with the player trying to draw the charge in mind, but they didn't qualify its use with what the player does.