You're jumping the gun, BNR. Besides, it's an internet forum, where the English language is the tool of the trade. Anyway, let's see if we can do this without being snide.

It's pretty simple, really. The shooter falls under "opponent" here, and you can't push an opponent (10-6-1). That's where it's in the book, black and white.

In this play, Anthony was clearly pushed by James. To JRut's point, the only reason he lands on two feet is he's forced to regain balance in mid-air by kicking up his left leg. That wouldn't have been necessary without the body contact caused by James.

Hmmmm...it would appear to me that the reason his left leg goes up in the air is because he grabs the rim with his left hand. The contact - after the block - by James, had it been more severe, would have spun him to the side, not caused him to kick a leg up.

I almost hate to ask this question, but you do watch basketball games right?

How many times does a basketball player dunk and land perfectly on their two feet and there are people around the basket? Heck there are players that hardly land right and no one is around them on a dunk. Again if that is the standard, that is a rather bad or inconsistent standard you are using. You better be calling a foul anytime a shooter is touched even when the defense did nothing illegal.

It is one thing to hold on to a definition, but definitions are often subjected to jargon or specific industry or professional language as well. Just because the word "shooter" is a noun, does not mean it applies to this situation you referenced. Rule 4-27 also says that not all contact is a foul and any contact that does not affect the normal movement of an opponent, should not be ruled a foul. Sorry, but IMO (and I am fine if I am alone, but I am not on this one) there is absolutely no affect on Melo's movement on what was essentially a clean block. All the contact was clearly incidental and I am sure the official in question wants that play back.

Peace

You're better than this, Rut.

I appreciate your rule citation (4-27), but riddle me this: Had James not touched the ball at all and only made the same bodily contact, would you have had a foul?

Not sure what you mean, when you suggested that a player going to the basket only landed improperly was because of a foul. Again, that play happens often as I stated, so I am not really sure you watch much basketball if that is your explanation for being fouled.

Well touching the ball is a big part of this play. You cannot dismiss that part just to make the discussion convenient for your point of view. And if there was no ball contact and the play could not be completed, meaning he could not get the ball to the basket, and then a foul might have been a call on my part. But as I said, the ball being played is a big part of this play. It would be a big part of a play on a steal as well. Not much different in a steal where a ball is knocked away, you might expect some contact to take place in going for the ball. I did not say all contact was OK either, just stating that contact in this play did not change the movement of the shooter.

Peace

Bainsey, are you saying you have a foul on this?

I can dismiss it as much as you can include it to make your point just as convenient. Here's why.

This is where I ask for another citation. Never have I seen a rule or case play where a defender can legally make bodily contact if they touch the ball cleanly. (If such a thing exists, I'll gladly retract.)

A wicked foul!

(Sorry man, couldn't resist.)

But yes, I thought I made that clear.

Everything is not about a specific citation. Still I clearly gave the rules I use to decide when contact in incidental which is clearly rules based. There is also some philosophy involved as well as there should be.

I am not calling a foul on a play like this or I surely hope I don't. There was not a guy knocked in the 3rd row. The shooter came down on both feet under control. And the ball was touched before anything contact took place. If that is not something you want to accept, that is your choice.

But if it is true you are going to camp, good luck with making that call at that camp. If you do not take my word for it, just wait and you will see.

Peace

The Three F's ...
 

Foot, floor, foul.

My general rule of thumb on plays with that amount of contact is that if the block occurs first, no call. If the body contact occurs first, foul because the body contact may impede the shooter before the ball is blocked. In this play, I'm sure Callahan would like to have it back.

On the other hand, you have plays where the block is clean and then alot of contact after. Fouls in that case are appropriate because the defender shouldn't have carte blanche just because the block occurs first.

Very well. I'll remember that.

+1

4 forum pages (and counting....) on a play that should not have been whistled a foul......

gotta love this forum during the "off-season"....:)

What do you need to remember? You have not given a rulebook specific reference this entire conversation that matched the so-called language you claim is so important. Obviously you are using a philosophy that works for you. Nothing wrong with that, just admit that and stop trying to act like everyone else is making comments that are not only rules based and you are the righteous one.

Peace

Good luck in camp with your Webster's Dictionary responses when asked about a play. I wonder what adjectives you'll have to describe the observers who aren't up for your little word games.

And back to my point, "Protect the Shooter", as JRut already stated, is not in the rule book. "Protect the shooter" has an accepted definitioin and application in basketball officiating. My response to arrogance is usually snideness. So guess I responded appropriately the first time around.