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

Was asked to post this play for discussion:

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/asM2m72DEyA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

*EDIT* Play added at post 73.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fJavWOzKH6A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

**EDIT Play added at post 90.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U7Xc3NhbWWk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nice block, great teaching moment... dont call above the rim plays as L.

No foul, jus an incredible block.

Disagree, or rather, I think your statement needs more specificity. I would say the lead needs to stay off action above the rim, but on this type of play there can be body contact occuring below the rim that the lead needs to officiate.

Calling a foul on LeBron here and there is good for the game - it quiets some of the conspiracy theorists.

I'm pretty sure Mike Callahan doesn't think about that crap when it comes to his playcalling.

True story... he saw the body contact but unfortunately he didnt see that the block was very clean & prior to the contact. 95/5 at best.

Foul....









....ok not really but it gets boring just agreeing with everyone all the time.

By the letter of the rule, this would be a blocking foul...there was plenty of displacement through body contact from a position that was no where near LGP Without it, LeBron wouldn't have been able to block the shot (or at least not nearly as easily).

However, in practice, when a player gets that much ball up top, we often ignore a lot of body contact that comes with it.

Not sure why we don't protect shooters who get their shot blocked, but we don't.

Well considering that the shooter landed under his own power, did not change his follow through on the shot, not sure what there is to protect. Blocked shots are almost always going to have some level of contact. I think the official in this case (like many do) anticipated the contact and did not likely see the entire play.

Peace

On jump shooters we do. Jump shot, quick block, crash! We can't officiate that play like a punt in football.
Like you said there are less calls on plays to the rim. I think that is because he is going up with much more force and bracing for any contact. This is most likely why the contact is deemed incidental. Which I agree with in most plays.

Where does it say a player has to be knocked on their backside to be fouled?

Protecting the shooter is about letting the shooter land cleanly and safely. Knocking them sideways is usually not doing that, even if they happen to be agile enough to come out on their feet.

But, as I said, we don't call these if the defender gets the ball first or even gets mostly ball....short of extreme contact.

I know... was just havin' some fun.

It doesn't say that specifically, but the rule does say that it is not a foul when a player's movement is not affected and in this case there is not affect on movement based on the contact that may or may not have taken place.

The rule does not say that there cannot be any contact what so ever. Again, was Melo knocked to the floor? Was he unable to land in a similar spot without the contact? Better yet, did LBJ block the ball first? And players can fall as a result of the force of the block as much as the contact. Heck someone big is jumping to prevent you from completing a motion towards the basket, I would suspect that some contact is inevitable or this could knock someone off their normal movement even when there is no contact. This is why at the end of the day this is a judgment call.

Peace

I was actually watching the game last night when this play happened...my first thought was "Nice call!" And then they showed the replay...a good patient whistle on this play and we don't call anything. I can understand why it would be called, but it really should come from an outside official who has a better look at the play.

I had the same reaction on the live shot, then when I saw the replay I retracted that opinion.

Peace

Yep.

Really not enough contact to displace or hamper the shooter, and the block up top was amazingly clean.

I think the L jumped on that one too quickly.

Ahh, the old "clean up top" argument... Is this valid or not?

This looks like a foul to me. Defensive player comes through the offensive player to get the ball (ie no verticality). This is not incidental contact IMO.

Even though the clean block occurs prior to the contact?

Start Popping The Popcorn ...
 

Oh brother? Here we go again.

<3rd year guy working JV ball is just going to sit back and try to learn>

Why not?

Block is made before any body contact occurs, so the body contact did not interfere with the shooter normal motions.

Body contact was not severe enough to displace the shooter or interfere with his coming back to the floor.

So why - in your opinion - is this not incidental contact? What makes it worthy of a foul?

Some people reach the double bonus in each half of every game they work... It's true!!!

Mere contact is not a foul, sorting out the contact that makes a difference & passing on inconsequential contact can be a challenge though.

In my experiences the closer they get to the rim, more contact is certain to occur, but it doesn't mean its a foul.

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.

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.

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

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.

Intelligence, Logic, And Cunning ...
 

Not back when Bill Russell played:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nWFsL4Y8RVA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Billy, you did not watch much of that video did you?

Peace

I don't see what's the point of this clip when discussing the play at hand but...different era and different style of play...not nearly the same amount of athleticism nor above the rim play that there is now...even in just the college play.

Obviously not...

And some guys have near fights break out because they don't call anything short of a mugging. Neither of which is really relevant to this discussion, though.

The Land That Time Forgot ...
 

Agree. But it was still fun to watch back then, and, at least for me, today. Willis Reed, of the New York Knicks, used similar tactics, not trying to block every shot, but waiting for the right time, right player, right place, etc. Today, players try to block just about every shot that they have any chance to block. Certainly makes for a more physical game, a more difficult game to officiate, and some may say, a more exciting game.

Thanks for taking a look at the video guys. I hope that you got some enjoyment out of it, and didn't find it a complete waste of your time.

You have a knack for derailing threads and going off-top Billy but...

Are we getting on players for attempting to block too many shots? :confused: If one has a shot at blocking a shot, why shouldn't they attempt to? Should Scott Brooke tell Serge Ibekaka he's attempting to block too many shots...even when he lead the league this year with over 3.5 blocks/game?

Or what about that no one seems to block the shot after release of the ball, they try to block shots out of the shooter's hands. As you said very different techniques and styles at play.

Peace

Never understood this. Where does it say that sufficient body contact is allowed if a clean hand is on the ball?

Show me in the rulebook where the term, "Protect the shooter" is even listed? Just like that is a standard that many use, so is the philosophy to not call a foul on this kind of contact. ;)

Peace

We All Love The Challenge ...
 

No. At least, I'm not. No reason, one should go ahead and try to block it.

I said that it makes a "more difficult game to officiate". I probably should have said that it makes a more challenging game to officiate, and I'm sure that many of you are like me, and enjoy the challenge of officiating basketball.

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?

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

"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.

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

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.

From a Knicks' fan...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Calling APG!!!!
 

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

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.

Please. :rolleyes:

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

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...

Very well.

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.

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.

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

From game 4 of the Heat v. Knicks series:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fJavWOzKH6A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

I'm color-blind and horrible at identifying purple so I just learned something new. :D 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.

I would say Wade was more vertical on his play than Lebron was, but I still wouldn't have had a foul on Lebron.

Well at least you know or admit that you are color-blind and realize how you could not identify a certain color. ;)

I also agree with that, but both defenders are jumping towards Melo. That is why I say these plays are basically the same. Of course they are not exactly the same, but if one is a foul, then the other one must be a foul too if you use the same basic philosophy IMO. Or if you do not use that same philosophy, then someone would have to explain to me what is the affect on normal movement as stated in Rule 4-27.

Peace

Wade more or less went strait up while Lebron came flying across the lane to get there.

Wade was in LGP and jumped up as he's permitted to do.

While I can see a no call on Lebron, I don't see that a call is wrong with the way he came into the play....he didn't have LGP and was not in Melo's path at any time. Often that play is passed on, but technically, bainsey is correct.

Did Carmelo travel on the 1st play posted? Did he bring pivot foot back to floor, did not land simultaneosly?

+1
and maybe this is what the nba ref saw as i recall he comes across the lane, pivots and it appears his head and eyes picks up the secondary defender and he refs that player's actions. i am not sure all the good points on how to ref above the rim are correct on this particular play. melo grabbing the rim definitely changed just how far he would have been moved from his planned path. even with the grab of the rim, he is displaced a fair amount from intended path in my view. it would be nice to know how this play was graded by the nba. any chance one of you guys can find out?
















=

A buddy of mine who works in the NBA D-League said he had a clean block without hesitation.

I had a foul on James (as I stated earlier), but Wade's was clean without question. Wade is vertical and the body contact is created by Melo. It was presented as the "same play" as the James play, but I see it as the opposite of the James play; ie no verticality by the defender with all the contact being created by the defender.

Doesn't some of this depend on which level you officiate? Someone said you won't last long in the NBA if you call that a foul, and maybe that's true. But on the other hand, I'm not sure if you would last long at the HS level if you didn't. You'd have a brawl every night.

I honestly wouldn't expect a whistle in a college game. In a high school game, I would expect that more officials would put call this a foul, but I'd still disagree with the call. My point was at any level of play, I've been told that if you're consistently putting air in the whistle on this type of play, you aren't going to last long. Of course if your boss says he wants a foul on this, by all means, go ahead and do so.

It was basically the same play as Melo was attacking the basket from about the same spot on the floor and the defender and both defenders blocked the ball and had some level of contact. And Melo landed about the same. That does not mean there were not some differences, just a block first and subsequent contact. And if we are worried about James not be as vertical, neither is Melo on either play.

I believe you are right, it does depend on the level you work. But I do not think it is necessary the differences between NBA or HS as an example. If you called these a foul in most HS games I am used to working (big schools), you would be widely criticized for calling a foul. And you certainly would not be in a threat of any brawl on an athlete blocking a shot. As I said I had a very good friend/partner this last year work the State Finals and he called a foul on a similar play that was a little further out form the basket and he called a foul. The overall reaction was that he missed the call and the evaluators said he should have not called the foul. And I have yet to see the video to know how much if any contact the defender was responsible for before or after the call and that was the take. So an official calling these at the varsity level here will not work very long in Boy's basketball and certainly will not work post season if they cannot consistently rule these plays a block.

Peace

I've learned from feedback that fouls on plays like this are best not called. The shot is done, the player lands safely. If players are gong to brawl over little stuff like this, they've got other issues. I can guarantee I'd get more grief for making this call than I'd get for letting it go; even at lower levels.

I think most HS officials when you consider all levels and experience levels are not capable of passing on this play, because they are like many here, they see contact they think foul on these types of plays. At the same time cannot identify hand-checking or illegal screens, but this call is a "must call" for many because there was any type of contact with an airborne shooter.

Peace

I would agree with this, but people who work a level of ball where there are regularly plays like this will learn how to not call this.

Of course, there are always the people (normally middle school and jv coaches) who insist any contact with an airborne shooter is an "automatic" foul.

And that is part of the problem. They call this crap at these lower levels and they get patted on the back for doing so. Then when they get to a HS game with some players that can jump, then they call fouls.

Funny how I worked an AAU Tournament this past weekend with kids that might have been no older than 10 years old. On one play a kid split two defenders and lost his balance and threw up some crap to attempt a shot. I saw the entire thing and the defenders literally did not touch him, but he fell down on his face basically and the coach complained and ask me how that was not a foul? I answered by saying, "The the defenders did nothing wrong or illegal, he just fell." The coach basically said, "He cannot fall over air?" It was funny because I guess he has never seen a 10 year old fall down on his own not only in basketball, but while playing in the street. I am convinced officials buy into that thinking and call things that are easy because it is accepted. Not that what I just described was the exact kind of play, but it certainly is the reason I think many will call a foul even when any contact takes place with a shooter. They do not have the ability to have courage to not call what is not there or to explain why it was not a foul to a hostile coach. But experience teaches you sometimes that you are doing no one a favor by calling a foul just to be calling a foul.

Peace

Hey APG...any chance you can post McGee's block of Gasol from last night? LAte in the 4th quarter (less than a minute to go, I think) and McGee rejected Gasol's dunk attempt...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U7Xc3NhbWWk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks APG! Not quite the same kind of play, but I am interested to see if all those who are saying the first one by James "has to be a foul" will the say the same about this one...after all, McGee's follow through makes some contact with Gasol.

Plus, I really liked the play whan it happened and they didn't show any replays of it last night!:D

I say no foul on this one.

(And on the James one, I never said it I had to be a foul or even should have been a foul, just that it was justifiable within the rules.)

Incidental Contact ...
 

If this play had happened in my high school game, I would not have a foul.

Legal Contact ...
 

Even if there was contact, it might not have been illegal contact. There's a difference between tripping, and being tripped. One is legal. The other isn't.

Very true. And in this particular play, he was not even falling because of contact, he just fell. Other times there was some contact and I believe the young man felt there was going to be some contact, but the defenders backed off. As a result the player fell on his own.

Peace

No way, this one is clean. The defender goes vertical in his space, contact is created primarily by the offense.

Oh, I see...Gasol slammed the side of his face into McGee's arm on the follow-through. That makes sense.:p

I don't see much head contact on the play. I just see Gasol trying to dunk on someone and not being successful at it.

Gasol was hit in the head by McGee on the follow through, not sure how you don't see it.

The first block no contact but a fadeaway shot. From then on all block shots look to have some form of contact