Clean Block or a Foul?

[bainsey]

You're missing the point, Rock. Again, the defender clearly came into the shooter with body contact.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

You're missing the point, Rock. Again, the defender clearly came into the shooter with body contact.

I honestly am not seeing that in the video...are you sure you're not mistaking the fact that the shooter hit the defender in the mid-section (which caused the defender to fold up a little bit) for contact created by the defender?

[asdf]

Not a foul in the first 10 seconds of the game....

.... and not a foul in the last 10 seconds of the game.

Solid judgement by the guys on this one.

[Welpe]

Good observation rocky.

You know if you look at it slow motion, the offensive player travels. And no, I'm not advocating calling that.

Edit: Watched it again. Nevermind, no he doesn't.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Good observation rocky.

You know if you look at it slow motion, the offensive player travels. And no, I'm not advocating calling that.

It seems that so many videos that get posted have a travel in them that is not what the video was originally about.

No wonder traveling is a POE so often.

[Welpe]

Check my edit, I changed my mind. He started his gather but bobbled the ball a bit. No travel.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by asdf

Not a foul in the first 10 seconds of the game, and not a foul in the last 10 seconds of the game.

How about the middle 1900 seconds?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How about the middle 1900 seconds?

No, you didn't have to ask.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I honestly am not seeing that in the video...are you sure you're not mistaking the fact that the shooter hit the defender in the mid-section (which caused the defender to fold up a little bit) for contact created by the defender?

No, the defender is clearly going into the shooter. The defender has a right to defend his spot on the floor up to the ceiling, not the spots in front of the spot.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

No, the defender is clearly going into the shooter. The defender has a right to defend his spot on the floor up to the ceiling, not the spots in front of the spot.

Is the shooter whos driving to the rack not moving into the defender as well?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

Is the shooter whos driving to the rack not moving into the defender as well?

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

We ARE talking about #0 white, right?

[tref]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

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: "................"

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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?