Clean Block or a Foul?

[Spence]

From the KU/Mizzou game Saturday.

Clean or foul?

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

[twocentsworth]

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

[VaTerp]

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

[APG]

Here's the play slowed down for convenience:

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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

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.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by berserkBBK

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

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?

[zm1283]

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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).

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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?

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.

[bainsey]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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