Clean Block or a Foul?

[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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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

A "better" understanding or an understanding of verticality period?

An official who does not see the obvious difference between these two plays is an official who needs some serious help. I say that honestly and not to be derogatry but wow.......

[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).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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).

But he is facing the ball handler so he had to gain LGP.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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).

He had LGP almost the entire time. Moving has little to do with LGP. The only time, when a player has LGP, that movement becomes illegal is when, at the time of contact, the defender was moving toward the opponent....which is the case in the Duke clip (along with not being vertical...arms extended over opponent).

NFHS quote...but the rules are the same...

The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

Except for ONE of his steps, they were ALL toward the opponent (one was even followed by a reasonably hard chest bump while offense was not even moving toward the defender yet).

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Except for ONE of his steps, they were ALL toward the opponent (one was even followed by a reasonably hard chest bump while offense was not even moving toward the defender yet).

That contact was incidental and did not gain an advantage. In fact I think the contact went both ways. If the defender would have planted his feet and taken the contact he might have had a chance to draw a player control foul. However he didn't and leaned into the shooter, making contact and creating a clear disadvantage for the shooter. Easy foul call

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Except for ONE of his steps, they were ALL toward the opponent (one was even followed by a reasonably hard chest bump while offense was not even moving toward the defender yet).

LGP may be gained while moving towards the defender. The chest bumps are another story, however, as LGP doesn't give that right to the defender.