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

[JetMetFan]

The first time I saw the play was in a highlight at real speed. I didn't think it was a foul then and I still don't. IMO, LBJ's body contact didn't put Anthony at a disadvantage. If the contact had come before the block my opinion would've been different.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

A wicked foul!

(Sorry man, couldn't resist.)

But yes, I thought I made that clear.

Sorry, I missed it...

I've heard from a wide range of officials that deal with above the rim play regularly....from varsity officials, college officials, to D-League officials...you regularly put air in the whistle on plays like this, you won't last long at that level. A certain amount of contact is expected by everyone on plays to the basket like this...especially when the defender gets the ball first.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My response to arrogance is usually snideness.

Let's recap. I was asked for an example. I provided one. Instead of disagreeing civilly, you got snide. When I provided some facts to back up my opinion, you say I'm playing word games. I sense a bit of arrogance from you, too.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

....stop trying to act like everyone else is making comments that are not only rules based and you are the righteous one.

Not doing either, sir. I gave you a citation, but since it's one that you don't like, you simply stated that citations don't always matter (even though you provided one yourself), and also got snide.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I've heard from a wide range of officials that deal with above the rim play regularly....from varsity officials, college officials, to D-League officials...you regularly put air in the whistle on plays like this, you won't last long at that level. A certain amount of contact is expected by everyone on plays to the basket like this...especially when the defender gets the ball first.

A respectful retort. Thank you for this, APG. I have a clearer understanding now.

[Adam]

I've got nothing, the contact clearly falls under the incidental contact rule, as it doesn't prevent Anthony from doing anything. The displacement, which is after the block, isn't nearly enough to call it on that alone.

I'm not saying I wouldn't have made that call from the L position; but I would have wanted it back if I did.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not doing either, sir. I gave you a citation, but since it's one that you don't like, you simply stated that citations don't always matter (even though you provided one yourself), and also got snide.

It was not about liking or not liking the citation. You said it involved the words, "Protect the shooter" when not a single phrase was used in that reference.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Let's recap. I was asked for an example. I provided one. Instead of disagreeing civilly, you got snide. When I provided some facts to back up my opinion, you say I'm playing word games. I sense a bit of arrogance from you, too.

Let's try to accurate for once. JRut stated that "Protect the Shooter" is not in the rulebook. Period. You said it was in 10-6-1. That is blatantly untrue so to justify your answer you start playing a shell game with the English language.

Arrogance is addressing people if we have some sort of reading comprehension deficiency and you are here to help us along and "break things down".

Your flair for long-winded explanations and less than truthful recounting of circumstances will not serve you well down the line.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Let's try to accurate for once. JRut stated that "Protect the Shooter" is not in the rulebook. Period. You said it was in 10-6-1. That is blatantly untrue so to justify your answer you start playing a shell game with the English language.

Arrogance is addressing people if we have some sort of reading comprehension deficiency and you are here to help us along and "break things down".

Your flair for long-winded explanations and less than truthful recounting of circumstances will not serve you well down the line.

Exactly!!!

Peace

[JRutledge]

If you can, get a copy of the Wade Block on Melo with about 3:15 in the 4th Quarter of today's game. Similar play as the block we are discussing.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Arrogance is addressing people if we have some sort of reading comprehension deficiency and you are here to help us along and "break things down".

We break down rules interpretations all the time here, using facts and definitions to back up our opinions. That's a big reason this forum is here, to discuss what's applicable. I honestly believe that 10-6-1 is designed to protect opponents, be they shooters, cutters, defenders, et al. If want to make it all about the single term "shooters," that's your prerogative.

Besides, arrogance is also thinking that your way is the only way of thinking, that every word has a narrow definition, and that nothing could possibly be linked.

Please take a look at APG's response compared to yours. He made the point without stirring the pot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Please take a look at APG's response compared to yours. He made the point without stirring the pot.

Please.

I asked you a specific question and you basically lied about what was in the rules wording. Not only is the phrase, "Protect the shooter" not in the rule, the only word that is the same is "the" in the actual wording. The point was not trying to embarrass you; the point was to just show how we use phrases that are not always rules based or wording coming directly out of the rulebook. Your claim was people were not following the rules and you could not understand that thinking. Well I at least referenced actual wording by talking about "normal offensive and defensive movements" which is clearly used in 4-27. Of course what one person thinks is normal is abnormal to someone else, but this play would usually not be called a foul at the higher levels of with similar talent on the floor. Heck the almost exact same play took place in Game 4 of this series and nothing was called. I am sure the NBA reviewed that play with their staff and said it was either a foul correctly called or missed.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Your claim was people were not following the rules and you could not understand that thinking.

Basically true. My question was, "Where does it say that sufficient body contact is allowed if a clean hand is on the ball?" And what I've learned is...

...this play would usually not be called a foul at the higher levels of with similar talent on the floor.

Very well.

Not only is the phrase, "Protect the shooter" not in the rule, the only word that is the same is "the" in the actual wording.

I guess I have a more liberal interpretation of "protect" that you do, Rut, because I see 10-6-1 mostly about protection. It protects ALL PLAYERS on the floor. That's what I honestly believe, and that's why I saw a foul in the clip.

I asked you a specific question and you basically lied about what was in the rules wording.

Wrong, sir. I gave you my honest views, and what led to them. If you want to question my judgment or knowledge, that's fine. Going for my integrity, however, is way off base.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Wrong, sir. I gave you my honest views, and what led to them. If you want to question my judgment or knowledge, that's fine. Going for my integrity, however, is way off base.

This was the exact wording of my question below.

Show me in the rulebook where the term, "Protect the shooter" is even listed?

You answered by referencing simply 10-6-1. Maybe you did not understand the question, but no where in that rule (reference) is that term listed "Protect the shooter" listed. Now if that is questioning your integrity in that certainly was not the intention, but just pointing out that you clearly were not correct based on where it was listed in the rulebook. You said the term "Protect the shooter" was listed in that rule and it clearly was not the case. Now you either lied, mislead or did not read the rule you referenced, but that is totally wrong all the same. I did not ask you where you got the thinking or where the rule suggests your way of thinking. I asked a very specific question that had a basic yes or no to it or the reference that was appropriate. That is more than a viewpoint. That is like saying the rulebook color is green when you know it is purple. Now maybe you are colored blind I do not know, but I was not asking for an opinion, I was asking for a specific reference that clearly was not there.

You know, if that is OK with you stick with that story.

Peace

[APG]

From game 4 of the Heat v. Knicks series:

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Was asked to post this play for discussion:



*EDIT* Play added after post 73

That looks like damn near the same play. Both James and Wade make contact with Melo on both plays and Melo lands on his feet both times. I am seriously not sure why these plays would be called any differently.

Thanks again for following through with this request.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This was the exact wording of my question below.



You answered by referencing simply 10-6-1. Maybe you did not understand the question, but no where in that rule (reference) is that term listed "Protect the shooter" listed. Now if that is questioning your integrity in that certainly was not the intention, but just pointing out that you clearly were not correct based on where it was listed in the rulebook. You said the term "Protect the shooter" was listed in that rule and it clearly was not the case. Now you either lied, mislead or did not read the rule you referenced, but that is totally wrong all the same. I did not ask you where you got the thinking or where the rule suggests your way of thinking. I asked a very specific question that had a basic yes or no to it or the reference that was appropriate. That is more than a viewpoint. That is like saying the rulebook color is green when you know it is purple. Now maybe you are colored blind I do not know, but I was not asking for an opinion, I was asking for a specific reference that clearly was not there.

You know, if that is OK with you stick with that story.

Peace

I'm color-blind and horrible at identifying purple so I just learned something new. And if someone wants to say that "protect the shooter" is in the NFHS rules then the closest reference would be the wording in ruling 4.1.1 from the case book.