Clean Block or a Foul?

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know none of my college supervisors would be happy with me if I called a foul on this play. ... "high school calls"

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

[tref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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: 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.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

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.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

So as a man thinketh...

[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: "................"

[APG]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

2. The NCAA RA rules currently make no mention/exception/allowance for a player blocking or attempting to block a shot.

Not saying you're wrong, but why does 4-35-7...the very last bit mention:

"This restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot."

To me, the RA has always been about secondary defenders trying to get into position to draw a charge on an opponent. A defender who jumps verticality is not setting up to draw a charge, but playing active defense, and thus the RA shouldn't apply.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Not saying you're wrong, but why does 4-35-7...the very last bit mention:

"This restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot."

To me, the RA has always been about secondary defenders trying to get into position to draw a charge on an opponent. A defender who jumps verticality is not setting up to draw a charge, but playing active defense, and thus the RA shouldn't apply.

I like it. And then it still comes to clean block and then incidental contact (albeit, a decent amount).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Not saying you're wrong, but why does 4-35-7...the very last bit mention:

"This restriction shall not prohibit a defender, located within the restricted area, from attempting to block a shot."

To me, the RA has always been about secondary defenders trying to get into position to draw a charge on an opponent. A defender who jumps verticality is not setting up to draw a charge, but playing active defense, and thus the RA shouldn't apply.

I agree because most likely any illegal contact that occurs when a defender maintains verticality in a block attempt would come from an offensive player leading with his foot/leg or warding off of with his arm, which are both PC fouls that override the secondary defender RA restrictions.

[ballgame99]

How can that much contact not result in a foul? You can say fans are stupid and don't know the rules (most don't and this is a true statement most of the time) but when they see a guy go up for a layup and get clobbered I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a foul call.

A1 is airborn before B1 even takes off, B1 comes in chopping downward hard and creates significant contact. He is not vertical at all, he comes from opposite side, he takes off in the middle of the circle and contact occurs outside the circle, he would have landed outside the lane if no contact. Whether he got ball clean up top before contact has nothing to do with anything.

So by most in here the little guys should not even bother taking anything in the lane because if the big guy comes through you and gets ball first its not a foul???

And for those that didn't see the finish of the game, they called a touch foul on Missouri on an out of control KU player with 8 seconds left in OT for the go ahead free throws.

[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?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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.