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

[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.

[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