Clean Block or a Foul?

[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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

Agreed.

[tref]

Hold up, wait a minute!

APG am I mistaken or is the RA only for block/charge situations??

If a 2ndary defender is in the RA & is NOT trying to draw a charge, but block a shot instead then everything RA related is off unless the offense does something illegal, no?
We can still have a foul on the attempted blocked shot by the defender but we dont use the RA mechanic, right?

[APG]

Originally Posted by tref

Hold up, wait a minute!

APG am I mistaken or is the RA only for block/charge situations??

If a 2ndary defender is in the RA & is NOT trying to draw a charge, but block a shot instead then everything RA related is off unless the offense does something illegal, no?
We can still have a foul on the attempted blocked shot by the defender but we dont use the RA mechanic, right?

That's how I understood the rule.

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That's how I understood the rule.

Ok I'm good then, thanks.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

He landed there due to the impact with the shooter.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

bainsey - don't take the "high school official" comment too seriously...

Not offended whatsoever. I completely agree that, often times, some calls unnecessarily penalize the defense. I don't believe this is one of them. I see neither verticality nor incidental contact here. Until a supervisor tells me otherwise, that's what I'll go with.

Originally Posted by tref

Because the shooter got his try wiped clean prior to the contact.

He was unquestionably wiped clean. I simply don't believe that's license to level someone, and that a defender has to be responsible for his momentum (verticality notwithstanding). If the rules say otherwise, that's good enough for me to convert.

[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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by 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.

How do you explain the "little guy" knocking the "big guy" (who was allegedly moving into the little guy) backwards?

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by asdf

How do you explain the "little guy" knocking the "big guy" (who was allegedly moving into the little guy) backwards?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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

F=ma? P=mv?

[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.