Clean Block or a Foul?

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Actually, 4-27 doesn't say that. 4-40 is the one that says that referring to a player running into a blind screen. Not a very good comparison here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, 4-27 doesn't say that. 4-40 is the one that says that referring to a player running into a blind screen. Not a very good comparison here.

Maybe you need to go back and read all the articles in 4-27.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, 4-27 doesn't say that. 4-40 is the one that says that referring to a player running into a blind screen. Not a very good comparison here.

From 4-27:

ART. 2 . . . Contact, which may result when opponents are in equally favorable
positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be
considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

[just another ref]

Ack

I stand corrected.

Read it earlier, didn't see it.

Someone has tampered with my book.