Clean Block or a Foul?
 

From the KU/Mizzou game Saturday.

Clean or foul?

Missouri Tigers vs. Kansas Jayhawks - Recap - February 25, 2012 - ESPN

Defender goes straight up; shooter was responsible for the contact; good block on the ball..... I got nothing on this play.

I have a no call and it's really not close.

Here's the play slowed down for convenience:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DIgx-iYcnYA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The shooter is not responsible for the contact on this play, because it's a RA play, and the shooter's contact is not flagrant.

Are you saying this as just a point or do you have a foul on the defense for this?
I have a clean block even with the RA, so I am confused by your statement.

I'm not decided yet. I'm trying to translate it in my brain to a women's game. But to say that the shooter is responsible for the contact here implies that if a foul is to be called that it's a PC foul if anything, and that the defender, by virtue of having verticality, cannot be called for a blocking foul, which is not the case, as he established IGP in the RA, and the contact occured while he was over the RA. I'm not a great judge of men's plays like this though, I'll admit. I'd be curious to see it as a video play on Arbiter by Adams.

I'd like to twist it and hear opinions of the play by completely removing the block of the ball.

How could you have a foul on the defender? The purpose of the RA is to stop secondary defenders from trying to draw a charge close to the basket. A defender is allowed to jump in an attempt to block the shot without worrying if he's in the RA or not.

Clean block by not only a legal defender, but he got to the ball first too. I love how the media wants every little contact a foul. ;)

Peace

But if there is contact sufficient for a block/charge foul, it will be a block due to the RA, even if his purpose was to block the shot.

That said....no foul....outstanding block.

APG - Help me understand your point by answering these questions. (And I'm not being antagonistic.)

1) Are you suggesting the contact here is not illegal, or is not illegal by virtue of the fact that he was attempting to block the shot?

2) Remove the defender jumping and the shot being actively blocked. Small guard jumping into large post who was at the spot in the RA before the shooter left the ground, and the shooter still ends up where he did in this play because of the contact with the vertical defender. What would your call be then?

All of the Missouri fans here are claiming they were screwed and are using this play as their example. The funny thing is that the Kansas fans claimed they got screwed after they lost in Columbia earlier this season.

Fans are so stupid.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong...couldn't one argue that if a player is attempting to block the ball, then he's not trying to get an initial legal position for the purpose of drawing a player control/charging foul? I thought the interpretation would be similar to the NBA's in that the RA doesn't apply in the NBA when a player makes a legitimate attempt to defend the shot (and jumping vertically would definitely fit that bill).

1. I thought the play was legal. The offensive player jumps into a defender who alights vertically to block the shot. The block was clean the rest of the contact, IMO, is incidental.

2. That would be a play I would have to see. I'm imagine it being a block since I'm not imagining the player in your scenario attempting to defend the shot.

Again, I thought NCAA's interpretation with regard to the RA was similar to the NBA's in that it didn't apply to a player making a legitimate attempt to block a shot. Apparently I might be incorrect on my interpretation there.

The arm is clean, but the body is dirty, dirty, dirty!

The view from the end-line camera is clear: The defender comes into the shooter, and is not straight up. I'm sending 1 black to the line for two shots, despite the chorus of boos.

I totally disagree that the body contact or the result of the body contact was the fault of the defender. The shooter was coming forward and fell mostly because he ran into a bigger player. At least from my judgment that is almost never a foul on the defender. And if at that level you call that a foul, you will not be around very long from my experience.

Peace

Perhaps you could make such an argument if the RA rule considered what a player was trying to do....but it doesn't. It only says a secondary defender can't have LGP while in the RA and any block/charge contact will be a block.

It was written with the player trying to draw the charge in mind, but they didn't qualify its use with what the player does.

This is a great example of a "clean up top" block. I see the body contact as incidental and I think that putting a whistle on this would be penalizing a great athletic play.

Yes, the shooter came forward, but the important piece of this equation is that the defender also lunged forward, hence the blocking foul. I could see your point if the defender remained in his "phone booth," but that wasn't even close.

I'm not sure what you're watching, but this play is a great example of sucking on a whistle and ignoring some subsequent contact down low because of the great defensive play up top.

This is the play where some officials will call a foul and sell hard "he got him down low", "body". Don't be one of those officials.

The only thing that made me look twice was whether or not the blockers arm followed through and hit the shooter on the head. If that happened, I'd probably consider calling a foul, depending on how responsible I think the blocker is for that contact.

Agreed. The big question - which we always ask ourselves - is: did the contact put anyone at a disadvantage? If anything it just "looks bad" because the defender swung his arm down to make the block.

I'm with Rich in terms of a hit to the head. That's the only way on this play I'd consider putting a whistle on it

Great defense on the blocked shot!


But there was some contact after the shot that may have affected the safe landing that A1 is entitled to.

• If that contact was too severe for you, then call a foul.
• If you believe that A1 deserved a better landing, then call a foul.

B5's right arm on the follow-through struck A1's head/neck area which seemed to knock him off of his safe landing. There was no way A1 was going to land as he did if there was no contact from B5.

I can definitely see calling this a foul in JV. Varsity: perhaps it's 50-50, likely less. I would not expect a call in the NCAA, and there wasn't.

Me personally, I dislike it when there is contact to a player's head. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and I tend to protect shooters more when they are hit in the head.

this is pretty simple....this is incidental contact at the D1 level (you may deem it "contact that warrants a foul" at a different level).


imho, the two best plays in basketball are the dunk and the blocked shot - one should not blow the whistle on incidental contact during such plays.

Looks like a 80/20 "play on" blocked shot to me. Big man got all ball 1st, then some body & we know what happens when a little man who just threw up a floater meets the big man in the air. Tough to reward the offense on that play...

I thought the RA was all about 2ndary defenders taking charges?? Defenders can still rise in an attempt to block a shot in the RA, no?

If they couldn't, then aren't you are changing a fundamental of basketball: the principle of verticality?

My point exactly.

Did this go OT, or did the KU player make the 2nd home run shot? Can't tell from the video.

Very well. Let's say there was no blocked shot on this play, only the body contact. What would you have then?

Shot was gone, defender was straight up, two reasons not to make a call.

The principal of verticality, of course.

Okay, that's where we part ways. It's more visible from the end line camera (where we'd roughly be as the lead), but I clearly see the defender coming into the shooter. Had he stayed in his "phone booth," I'd have nothing.

Seriously?

So the defender jumps from just within the RA circle, and ends up landing about 3 feet BACKWARDS from where he jumped - because of the shooter jumping into him. And you are going to call a foul on the defender and tell the Coach "He didn't stay in his phone booth!"

You're missing the point, Rock. Again, the defender clearly came into the shooter with body contact.

Not all body contact with an airborne shooter is a foul on the defender.

Peace

The closer players get to the rim, more contact is certain to occur. When a buck & change meets 2 & change the smaller guy usually goes down. Its our judgment as to whether its a foul or not. From the Ls camera angle, dude got his shot wiped, felt some contact & hit the deck. Great CNC!

I honestly am not seeing that in the video...are you sure you're not mistaking the fact that the shooter hit the defender in the mid-section (which caused the defender to fold up a little bit) for contact created by the defender?

Not a foul in the first 10 seconds of the game....

.... and not a foul in the last 10 seconds of the game.

Solid judgement by the guys on this one.

Made me watch again. I'm even more convinced now that no-call is the best option here. The defender was jumping obliquely, and the shooter was moving into him. L had a great angle, and so does the camera. The camera from under the basket doesn't give a great angle, IMO.

Good observation rocky.

<s>You know if you look at it slow motion, the offensive player travels. And no, I'm not advocating calling that.</s> :D

Edit: Watched it again. Nevermind, no he doesn't.

It seems that so many videos that get posted have a travel in them that is not what the video was originally about.

No wonder traveling is a POE so often. :D

Check my edit, I changed my mind. He started his gather but bobbled the ball a bit. No travel. :)

No, the defender is clearly going into the shooter. The defender has a right to defend his spot on the floor up to the ceiling, not the spots in front of the spot.

Is the shooter whos driving to the rack not moving into the defender as well?

OK, not trying to be a jerk here, but is anyone else seeing what bainsey is saying? Honest question because maybe I am missing it somehow...I just don't see the defender jumping into the shooter - I see it the other way entirely.

Anyone else see the defender jumping into the shooter?

Guidance below:

I see the defender jumping back and to his right, towards the lead official.

Thats what I saw too, more importantly, I saw dude get his shot REjected before any body contact took place.

If we have to use a Cathetometer to determine if and how a defender is going forward, then we really need to pass on that play. I see a offensive player that was coming forward and got his shot blocked and would have made contact with the defender regardless of what the defender did on this play. And because of that fact, the contact is totally incidental. The contact did not prevent the player from landing normally than he would have or prevent him from playing in the game. When someone blocks your shot, you tend to be off balance as you were trying to avoid the block in the first place. This would be a JV call to a foul on this particular play.

Peace

Absoultely, and if the defender were in his phone booth, we'd have a charge or nothing, though it's difficult to go with nothing considering the amount of contact here. Since the defender is indeed moving into the shooter, the burden of advantageous contact lies with him.

We ARE talking about #0 white, right?

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one bainsey.

Not only was he moving into the defender, he clearly moved the defender back, and continued to move forward himself after the contact as well.

I know none of my college supervisors would be happy with me if I called a foul on this play. Back in my 2nd season of college ball I believe the words one of my supervisors used on me when I worked a game with 2 officials who had D3 Final Four on their resumes was "high school calls" when differentiating my call selection from theirs. :o

1. I don't have the defender moving into the shooter.
2. The NCAA RA rules currently make no mention/exception/allowance for a player blocking or attempting to block a shot.
3. The key in my mind, and what I was driving at, is what JRut and a couple of others mentioned briefly, and what I asked APG: That, in this play, the official needs to determine if the contact is illegal, as specifically mentioned in the RA rules - because this secondary defender cannot establish initial legal guarding position in the RA - regardless of what they do after they establish there (i.e. all of the verticality/clean block up top discussion), or if it was incidental. That's why I posed the question of same situation, but defender never leaves the ground, and the shooter still ends up on the floor like they do in the film clip.

We (I think) all understand/know that a play where the defender establishes their guarding position in the RA and then contact occurs with the defender in/above the RA that results in both players hitting the ground will be a blocking foul (flopping/atypical situations aside). What I'm asking is when the defender doesn't hit the ground, or get seriously displaced, but the shooter does, what should we have?

Edit for this coach discussion with official after my play:
Coach: "HOW IS THAT A NOT A FOUL?"
Official: "THE DEFENDER DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, COACH."
Coach: "THE DEFENDER CANNOT ESTABLISH LEGAL GUARDING POSITION THERE! SO DOESN'T THAT MAKE HIM ILLEGAL WHEN CONTACT HAPPENS WITH MY SHOOTER?"
Official: "I HAD ONLY INCIDENTAL CONTACT THERE, COACH."
Coach: "THAT'S A HE** OF A LOT OF INCIDENTAL CONTACT THAT RESULTS IN MY AIRBORNE SHOOTER LANDING ON HIS A** UNDER THE BASKET!"
Official: "................"

I suppose the important thing is that we ask the right questions, i.e., verticality, hindering, etc.

That said, I've been ignoring the sideline camera, because we never get that look, but from that view, it seems that #0 White jumps into the shooter laterally. Of course, a defender can move laterally, but wouldn't jumping into the shooter from that direction result in a blocking foul? If not, why not?

I think I found the crux. A high school official is probably all I'll ever be.

I would not call this in a HS game. But then again I do think there is a difference between what only HS guys do compared to officials that have experience with other levels and what they will call.

Peace

Maybe I can shed a little light on bainsey's position. Once upon a time, I would've easily called the foul on the defender, because I was watching the offensive player all the way to the basket, saw contact with the defender, and the offensive player went down after the contact. I used to be the one to "sell" that body contact.

Over time, I've evolved my thinking to concentrate a little more on the defender, and to not penalize them if they didn't do anything wrong, by rule. We've concentrated so much on the phrase "protect the shooters" that I think it has unfairly penalized good defense. This play is a good example of the defense not really doing anything wrong which leads to a lot of incidental contact.

bainsey - don't take the "high school official" comment too seriously, but approach it from the standpoint that maybe you can adjust your thinking on plays like this, and maybe it will help your overall play calling and career.

Official: The RA applies to block/charge situations with 2ndary defenders, coach. Not blocked shots...

See post #45 for a clear picture of the intent & purpose of the RA.

Because the shooter got his try wiped clean prior to the contact. And when I ask myself did that contact put the shooter at a disadvantage, I keep coming up with no. By the time the contact took place, the other team already had possession.

So as a man thinketh...

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

1. I'm enjoying this discussion, and 2. I think this was a good no-call in this game
 

but,
I don't know of any rule support that backs up that statement. For me, as I'm reading the rules and AR's, it comes down to either the contact was incidental, or the contact was illegal.

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).

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.

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?

I do. Details-
B1 -KU-0 jumps from RA toward the sideline putting himself into A1 path, my guestimate is about 2 feet of actual floor distance (B1 would have landed outside the RA with no contact from A1, enough to go into A1's path). A1 and B1 make contact,
A1's contact was lower on B1 causing B1's feet to land nearer the endline, but offbalance stumbling forward as his upperbody is farther forward.
Look past B1, at the blue lights/windows in the distance, can't see them now you do, B1 was moving forward.

I am a KU fan and was surprised no foul was called after seeing APG's replay.

That's how I understood the rule.

Ok I'm good then, thanks.

He landed there due to the impact with the shooter.

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.

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.

I keep trying to see it as a foul, but every time I have a clean play. If I would have called this a foul I would have been kicking myself all the way to the table for not having a patient whistle.

I Had To Ask ...
 

How about the middle 1900 seconds?

I see this as a guard and a shot blocking center making contact. Who is going to take the brunt of the contact? This in like when a taller player jumps up and takes a ball off a rebound from a shorter player. Of course everyone keeps yelling for "over the back". I'm not punishing a tall player for his size, and on this play I'm not punishing a center for being bigger than a guard and taking the contact better.

No, you didn't have to ask.

+1

Now in a 5th grade girls game, yes, call the foul. :D

Since Bainsy seems to be getting beaten up in here
 

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.

If you are having to do a measurement based on slow motion measuring of the blue lights and windows in the far background, then the defender did nothing wrong. The shooter created the contact and the ball was blocked cleanly. I still say this was a great no-call by the crew. Kudos to them for having patient whistles on this play.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Some officials have more experience & better judgment than others.

And?

Alotta fanboy talk in that statement! If the defense gets a block clean up top & then crashes into a jump shooter, I agree.
Two players going up & meeting in the middle is not the same play.

Just like the old tv show, That's Impossible! Check that, Thats Incredible... but still impossible.

Next time purchase your foul insurance :rolleyes:

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.

Easy. When the contact is not illegal.

IMHO this play is indicative of the type of call selection that differeniates officials and what level of play they can referee. This is simply not a foul at really any level and especially anything above middle school ball.

My HS assingor would skewer any official who made this call and I'm pretty confident in saying that 99% of the college officials/assignors that I have had
the opportunity to chat with would do the same.

And people who are saying that the defender is moving forward and even guestimating how many feet he would have landed are just flat out wrong. Have you guys ever played the game, ever blocked a shot, ever attempted a contested lay-up? I already know how some will react to that question but it says something to me.

I'm just baffled that there are multiple people aruging extensively that there should be a whistle on this play.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Absolutely!!!


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.

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.

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

Peace

My Grandmaother Gave Me A Physic When I Was Constipated ...
 

F=ma? P=mv?

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.

Not a good way to start your question. The amount of contact is not the sole determining factor for whether it's incidental or illegal. Inicidental contact may, in fact, be quite severe.

There are two questions that matter.

1. Did the defender do anything wrong? I (and a few others) don't think he did, so we stop asking at this point.

For those who think he did, the next question is whether the shooter was disadvantaged or displaced. He was obviously displaced, so calling the foul would follow.

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.

Jeff, if a player in a Girl's 7th Grade C level game can pull off a block this athletic, I'm not putting a whistle on it! :)