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

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

You're better than this, Rut.

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.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

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

[APG]

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot dismiss that part just to make the discussion convenient for your point of view.

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

... if there [were] 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.

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.)

[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.

[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

[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.