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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

show me in the rulebook where the term, "protect the shooter" is even listed?

nfhs 10-6-1

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

nfhs 10-6-1

Really? A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

Sorry, don't see "protecting the shooter" in there.

You said you are going to your first camp this off-season, right?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

nfhs 10-6-1

Well you may have to look for another reference because nothing in that rule uses the language "protect the shooter." And there is nothing in that specific reference that talks about even a shooter.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well you may have to look for another reference because nothing in that rule uses the language "protect the shooter." And there is nothing in that specific reference that talks about even a shooter.

"Shooter" is covered by another noun in that rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

"Shooter" is covered by another noun in that rule.

Sometimes just admit when you are wrong instead of trying to massage the English language to fit your interpretations.

"Protect the shooter" is an officiating term. Its commonly accepted definition is that we need to protect jump shooters from the time they go airborne, through the release, and all the way back to the floor.

It you want to give it your own definition, fine, but don't insult our reading abilities and acquired knowledge by telling us it's in NFHS Rule 10-6-1.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sometimes just admit when you are wrong instead of trying to massage the English language to fit your interpretations.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

You're better than this, Rut.

...there is absolutely no affect on Melo's movement on what was essentially a clean block. All the contact was clearly incidental...

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"Protect the shooter" is an officiating term. Its commonly accepted definition is that we need to protect jump shooters from the time they go airborne, through the release, and all the way back to the floor.

Foot, floor, foul.

[Jay R]

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Everything is not about a specific citation.

Very well. I'll remember that.

Originally Posted by Jay R

....the defender shouldn't have carte blanche just because the block occurs first.

+1

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

"Shooter" is covered by another noun in that rule.

Interesting. Next time I will read your mind and hope that everyone follows so we can all be consistent. As no one I have ever met used that rule as a justification for the term "protect the shooter" which is mostly used as an officiating jargon to explain that we should follow the shooter to the floor and make sure they are not killed. This play in question not only did the shooter not get killed, he landed on two feet and was able to participate in the play if a foul was not called. If that is a foul on a shooter, then any contact on the shooter is illegal and that is not what any rule states, even the reference you made with 10-6-1.

Peace