Clean Block or a Foul?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Its hard for me in this situation, obviously. I am an official. I am a Mizzou alum and fan.

From an official's view, these two plays are both fouls by the letter of the rules. The shooter's attempt doesn't end until he lands, therefore whether he got ball before contact matters not. There is excessive contact that the defender creates.

From a fan's perspective, I see a guy go up for a layup and get creamed (no call) and then I see another guy go up and get the benefit of a hand check call (very minimal contact that disadvantaged him very little if at all). The whole thing stinks.

Do you work big school boys varsity games? Or any college men's games?

I'm just curious. Because every place I lived if you call fouls like the one in the video you probably wouldn't be on the top of anyone's preferred list.

Verticality as a principle does not mean the defender is going to take off and land in the exact same location, BTW.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Its hard for me in this situation, obviously. I am an official. I am a Mizzou alum and fan.

From an official's view, these two plays are both fouls by the letter of the rules. The shooter's attempt doesn't end until he lands, therefore whether he got ball before contact matters not. There is excessive contact that the defender creates.

From a fan's perspective, I see a guy go up for a layup and get creamed (no call) and then I see another guy go up and get the benefit of a hand check call (very minimal contact that disadvantaged him very little if at all). The whole thing stinks.

Forgive me but what rule are you referring to? I gave you a rule that clearly says that all contact is not a foul and if normal movement is not affected it should not be a foul and you are saying by rule this play should be a foul? What rule are you referencing? If the defender is vertical how can they be in an illegal position? An airborne shooter does not get a "no fly zone" because they are going to the basket.

Peace

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Forgive me but what rule are you referring to? I gave you a rule that clearly says that all contact is not a foul and if normal movement is not affected it should not be a foul and you are saying by rule this play should be a foul? What rule are you referencing? If the defender is vertical how can they be in an illegal position? An airborne shooter does not get a "no fly zone" because they are going to the basket.

Peace

Agree, if the defender is vertical this isn't a foul. In my judgement he isn't vertical. That is all.

Part of my "problem" may be that I have played basketball all my life, coached for many more, and am now trying to learn to be an official and I've got you guys telling me everything that I know about the game is wrong. I need to learn that a guard isn't allowed to go in for a layup and have his path to the basket violated by the defender and get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop and expect a foul. No wonder people ***** about college officials.

Sorry, I will keep my middle school officiating-self out of the deep end from now on.

And I mentioned the other call because someone previously asked how the game ended and the OP said something about how Mizzou fans were complaining. The complaining is due to the perceived inconsistency.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Part of my "problem" may be that I have played basketball all my life, coached for many more, and am now trying to learn to be an official and I've got you guys telling me everything that I know about the game is wrong. I need to learn that a guard isn't allowed to go in for a layup and have his path to the basket violated by the defender and get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop and expect a foul. No wonder people ***** about college officials.

Don't exaggerate. The Missouri player did not get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop. In fact the swinging of his arm had nothing to do with how he got to the floor. He went to the floor because he was moving at a high rate of speed at an opponent who is bigger/heavier than him. Now if you want to debate whether the defender had verticality, that's fine and a valid opinion but to say the defender chopped down the opponent is hyperbolizing the play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

... I need to learn that a guard isn't allowed to go in for a layup and have his path to the basket violated by the defender and get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop and expect a foul. No wonder people ***** about college officials.

Sorry, I will keep my middle school officiating-self out of the deep end from now on.

And I mentioned the other call because someone previously asked how the game ended and the OP said something about how Mizzou fans were complaining. The complaining is due to the perceived inconsistency.

Well, now you're saying A1 was tomahawk chopped.

People b!tch about middle school officials also.

The complaining is b/c Mizzou lost a close game involving officials making decisions late in game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Don't exaggerate. The Missouri player did not get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop. In fact the swinging of his arm had nothing to do with how he got to the floor. He went to the floor because he was moving at a high rate of speed at an opponent who is bigger/heavier than him. Now if you want to debate whether the defender had verticality, that's fine and a valid opinion but to say the defender chopped down the opponent is hyperbolizing the play.

Absolutely!!!

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Agree, if the defender is vertical this isn't a foul. In my judgement he isn't vertical. That is all.

Part of my "problem" may be that I have played basketball all my life, coached for many more, and am now trying to learn to be an official and I've got you guys telling me everything that I know about the game is wrong. I need to learn that a guard isn't allowed to go in for a layup and have his path to the basket violated by the defender and get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop and expect a foul. No wonder people ***** about college officials.

Just because you coached and played does not mean you know the rules. I played too for years and when I became an official I had to relearn rules or learn what the rule actually was based on the common myths I had regurgitated to me for years.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Sorry, I will keep my middle school officiating-self out of the deep end from now on.

I think this is part of the problem with these discussions. I am not saying this necessarily about you, but working a college Men's game is very different than working many varsity games, both boys and girls games. And part of the problem is this play is not totally uncommon at that level or even many varsity boys games, but might be something you never see at a middle school or even lower level HS game. And I really think that is why many of us will never agree because a middle school official has a different set of motivations than a college official. And this is also why I cannot stand to work girls games because this kind of contact would be expected to be called. Heck I have seen officials call fouls in girls games where no one falls and there is a foul on a made basket. And I think really that is the crux of this issue, because what you are used to working will dictate what you see or what judgment you use.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

And I mentioned the other call because someone previously asked how the game ended and the OP said something about how Mizzou fans were complaining. The complaining is due to the perceived inconsistency.

And we should care about their opinion because........?

Peace

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, now you're saying A1 was tomahawk chopped.

People b!tch about middle school officials also.

The complaining is b/c Mizzou lost a close game involving officials making decisions late in game.

A bit off-topic, but I was sitting in my car listening to the game before going into to see a high school district final in MO. I heard the end of the game on the radio and as I got out of my car I heard about 100 car doors slamming shut.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Agree, if the defender is vertical this isn't a foul. In my judgement he isn't vertical. That is all.

I need to learn that a guard isn't allowed to go in for a layup and have his path to the basket violated by the defender and get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop and expect a foul. No wonder people ***** about college officials.

Sorry, I will keep my middle school officiating-self out of the deep end from now on.

You have a biased opinion on this, and you're trying to pick hairs to gain a call in your team's favor. You sound bitter and need to blame someone. If you look at more games than just your team's, then you would have a better understanding for how accurate these officials are.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Agree, if the defender is vertical this isn't a foul. In my judgement he isn't vertical. That is all.

Part of my "problem" may be that I have played basketball all my life, coached for many more, and am now trying to learn to be an official and I've got you guys telling me everything that I know about the game is wrong. I need to learn that a guard isn't allowed to go in for a layup and have his path to the basket violated by the defender and get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop and expect a foul. No wonder people ***** about college officials.

Sorry, I will keep my middle school officiating-self out of the deep end from now on.

And I mentioned the other call because someone previously asked how the game ended and the OP said something about how Mizzou fans were complaining. The complaining is due to the perceived inconsistency.

I have played, coached, sat in the stands and cheered for my sons as they played, will hopefully sit and cheer for my grandkids as they play (down the road a ways). So I understand the whole issue of separating being a fan and being an official. I have had to struggle with it quite a few times.

In this case, you are letting your fan mindset overrule your officiating mindset. That defender did not fly into the shooter - the shooter flew into the defender. The defender did not tomahawk chop anyone.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Its hard for me in this situation, obviously. I am an official. I am a Mizzou alum and fan.

From an official's view, these two plays are both fouls by the letter of the rules. The shooter's attempt doesn't end until he lands, therefore whether he got ball before contact matters not. There is excessive contact that the defender creates.

From a fan's perspective, I see a guy go up for a layup and get creamed (no call) and then I see another guy go up and get the benefit of a hand check call (very minimal contact that disadvantaged him very little if at all). The whole thing stinks.

The bold statements show why you aren't impartial and sound like the fans that we try to get away from by posting on this forum.

[tref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Its hard for me in this situation, obviously. I am an official. I am a Mizzou alum and fan.

From an official's view, these two plays are both fouls by the letter of the rules. The shooter's attempt doesn't end until he lands, therefore whether he got ball before contact matters not. There is excessive contact that the defender creates. From a fan's perspective, I see a guy go up for a layup and get creamed (no call) and then I see another guy go up and get the benefit of a hand check call (very minimal contact that disadvantaged him very little if at all). The whole thing stinks.

So you're saying you couldnt get picked up & work games in that conference honestly?

Correction: He's an airborne shooter unitl he lands, but the try ends when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful. And seeing how KU had possession as your guy is laying on the wood, that try was done.

Excessive contact? Now you want a F1?
Creamed? Dont know about THAT.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

There is excessive contact that the defender creates.

.

I get the fact that you are frustrated because your team lost a game they shouldn't have. Wasn't Mizzou up by 19 or so in the second half?

But this statement is just wrong...the shooter creates the contact - he is the one that launches himself forward, not the defender.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

I think this is too general of a statement. If a small player goes into a larger player we can't automatically call a foul. The contact is always going to look worse on a little guy. So I guess a better idea would be for anyone to avoid contact no matter what size.

I did not see the game. However I never like comparing two different plays, because they are different and should be judged based on each individual play.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

How can that much contact not result in a foul?

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.

1) It doesn't result in a foul because the defender did not cause the contact - the shooter did, whether you like that fact or not.

2) It most certainly does have something to do with this play.

3) Incredibly stupid statement.

4) I personally don't care about some other call/play when we are talking about this play. Why would you even bring this up unless you are somehow trying to imply that the officials cheated?

[JRutledge]

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.

Maybe you need to read Rule 4-27. The rule says that "Contact can be severe" and the contact will be incidental. So the defense would have had to have done something illegal to have a foul in this case and that is debatable.

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

And there is a little rule called verticality. If the defender is vertical, which I believe he was then they cannot be called for anything unless you just want to make someone that does not the rule happy.

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

I really hate it when people twist what people say here to try to make their argument. No a little guy that runs into a bigger player is going to get knocked over. And we cannot call a foul under the rules if we only look at the result of the contact and not what the players did illegal. Just like we do not call a PC foul on a smaller player that runs into a legal standing defender and bounces off and falls to the floor, we should not call a foul just because a little guy falls either on this kind of play. Unless the defender jumped completely forward to an airborne shooter and knocked the shooter down, then maybe you are right. And it should be expected by using common sense that someone is going to fall near the basket when players are going hard to the basket. We as a group love to find reasons to call fouls on the defenders and often never give them the benefit of the doubt, but we allow offensive players to do all kinds of things and the offensive player is not necessarily in a legal position either.

Peace