Clean Block or a Foul?

[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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

In this play the defender did not maintain verticality AND this contact that he is responsible for disadvantaged the shooter.

Also as a point of order, this is not a block but illegal use of the hands and arms. That is the case in Fed but I'd be surprised if NCAA is substantially different.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

In one, the player jumped up (maybe even slightly forward), blocked an already released ball, then there was contact. At the time of contact, there was no longer a play to be made by the offensive player as the ball was on its way to orbit. No amount of contact was going to hinder the shooter from doing anything.

In this last one, the player stepped forward into the shooter, didn't get the ball at all, and created contact that displaced the shooter while he was trying to shoot....definite disadvantage to the shooter.

[tref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Then the OP play comes on here and the answers just seem to be so contradictory.

ballgame99, you havent got over that L yet?

This play is nothing like the OP play. The defenders arms clearly come out of his vertical plane & down onto the shooters arm, arguably twice. Plus, he got no ball whatsoever. Two different plays, two CCs.

You guys will get em next time!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

part of my confusion is that most on this board agreed that this defender was NOT vertical and therefore fouled the shooter.

There was no arm contact in the OP play we have been talking about. The contact with with the mid-section and with a airborne shooter flying to the basket on a vertical leap of the defender. Also the contact did not displace the shooter. The defender was where they were going to be and the shooter ran into them. Not the same play.

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.

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

Again these are not the same play. The Duke player might have started vertical at some point, but then put his arms down and hit the shooter's arm. The OP there was no contact with the shooter's arm. Then to add to the OP, the ball was blocked first and the remaining contact was incidental because it did not prevent the shooter from doing anything they would not have normally done. I do not even think the Duke player made any contact with the ball where we could then let some other minor contact go. The play you just showed is a foul all the way. There is not even consideration to incidental with an illegal defender.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

I think you need a better understanding of verticality. The Duke play is a great example of a player who does not maintain verticality.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

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.

On this play, I don't see a single instant where the defender has gained LGP. He's constantly moving sideways, one way or the other, and twice leans into the shooter (the uncalled first time more blatantly than the called 2nd time, IMHO).

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

How can that much contact not result in a foul?

Well...the difference is none of us are from Missouri.

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.

That was a good call, too. Look at that play from a rules perspective instead of a fan's and you'll understand.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Well...the difference is none of us are from Missouri.



That was a good call, too. Look at that play from a rules perspective instead of a fan's and you'll understand.

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.