Miami Heat v. New York Knicks: LeBron Block Attempt and Foul

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I was actually watching the game last night when this play happened...my first thought was "Nice call!" And then they showed the replay...a good patient whistle on this play and we don't call anything. I can understand why it would be called, but it really should come from an outside official who has a better look at the play.

I had the same reaction on the live shot, then when I saw the replay I retracted that opinion.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I had the same reaction on the live shot, then when I saw the replay I retracted that opinion.

Peace

Yep.

Really not enough contact to displace or hamper the shooter, and the block up top was amazingly clean.

I think the L jumped on that one too quickly.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by tref

True story... he saw the body contact but unfortunately he didnt see that the block was very clean & prior to the contact. 95/5 at best.

Ahh, the old "clean up top" argument... Is this valid or not?

This looks like a foul to me. Defensive player comes through the offensive player to get the ball (ie no verticality). This is not incidental contact IMO.

[tref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Ahh, the old "clean up top" argument... Is this valid or not?

This looks like a foul to me. Defensive player comes through the offensive player to get the ball (ie no verticality). This is not incidental contact IMO.

Even though the clean block occurs prior to the contact?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Ahh, the old "clean up top" argument... Is this valid or not?

Oh brother? Here we go again.

[dsqrddgd909]

<3rd year guy working JV ball is just going to sit back and try to learn>

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

This is not incidental contact IMO.

Why not?

Block is made before any body contact occurs, so the body contact did not interfere with the shooter normal motions.

Body contact was not severe enough to displace the shooter or interfere with his coming back to the floor.

So why - in your opinion - is this not incidental contact? What makes it worthy of a foul?

[tref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So why - in your opinion - is this not incidental contact? What makes it worthy of a foul?

Some people reach the double bonus in each half of every game they work... It's true!!!

Mere contact is not a foul, sorting out the contact that makes a difference & passing on inconsequential contact can be a challenge though.

In my experiences the closer they get to the rim, more contact is certain to occur, but it doesn't mean its a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Even though the clean block occurs prior to the contact?

If we're speaking according to the letter of the rules, there is nothing that says you are free from fouling if you get the ball first. Who knows, in absence of contact, perhaps the shooter would have been able to still make a play.

Some believe that the defender should take a line to avoid contact. If they can't get the block without going through the other player, then they really haven't got there first.

No, I'm not saying it should have been a foul, just presenting the other side of the story, which, by rule, is valid.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If we're speaking according to the letter of the rules, there is nothing that says you are free from fouling if you get the ball first. Who knows, in absence of contact, perhaps the shooter would have been able to still make a play.

Some believe that the defender should take a line to avoid contact. If they can't get the block without going through the other player, then they really haven't got there first.

No, I'm not saying it should have been a foul, just presenting the other side of the story, which, by rule, is valid.

Totally agree, I just didnt see this particular play that way.

[Raymond]

I'm thinking most supervisors would hope that after the game an official who made this call would say "I wish I had that back", not trying to justify it based on some body contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If we're speaking according to the letter of the rules, there is nothing that says you are free from fouling if you get the ball first. Who knows, in absence of contact, perhaps the shooter would have been able to still make a play.

Some believe that the defender should take a line to avoid contact. If they can't get the block without going through the other player, then they really haven't got there first.

No, I'm not saying it should have been a foul, just presenting the other side of the story, which, by rule, is valid.

Actually it is not valid as you would like everyone to believe, because nothing in the rule says that there is to be absolutely no contact on the shooter. The rulebook only says that no one can be hindered by contact that affects their normal offensive or defensive movements of an opponent. That is always going to be a judgment call what the contact did nor did not do to an opponent. Again you have the right to that opinion, but that is what it is, an opinion. It does not mean the rules are explicit to cover that point of view any more than my opinion does not exactly 100% have rules support either, other than to state the rules say something a little different than what you are suggesting.

Peace

[APG]

Just a line of thinking:

The lead is rotating right before the drive begins. When the contact ends up occurring I think the lead ends up being too close to the play, as he's lane line extended, and wasn't able to get wide enough.

As for the play, that's a play on IMO...the contact was incidental to the block.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Blocked shots are almost always going to have some level of contact.

Not back when Bill Russell played:

[JRutledge]

Billy, you did not watch much of that video did you?

Peace