Thoughts on this dunk...etc.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

I agree it's a no call, but I hate the excuse that he "bailed out to avoid significant contact". Not that your wrong that he did back up a bit but he is allowed to do so to protect himself from possible injury. Obviously we don't need to have "significant" contact for a foul to occur. The defender was in position and the offense clearly hit him. I would have been Ok seeing PC or No call on this.

I want to be sure that I am not singling you out JRut even though I used your comment, it just reminded me of a conversation I had this season with some other officials.

I am a big guy, I can handle myself just fine.

I am not saying that he cannot avoid significant contact, but it does not look like significant contact took place and was mostly incidental than a foul. It looks to me like he fell because he was off balance and trying not to getting actually run the heck over. If he took all the contact in the chest then I have a different story. It looks to me like most of the contact was with his arms and the dunker's legs trying to shield him and because he was off balance the little contact makes him fall.

Not all contact is a foul and this does not look like enough for me to call a foul in this situation.

Peace

[SmokeEater]

I agree with you and Snaqs comments regarding why to pass on this particular event. I was just reminded about a conversation I had about how some will not make the call unless there is "significant contact".

I just wanted you to know the reason why I specifically used your comment.

So in your words, Peace!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

I agree with you and Snaqs comments regarding why to pass on this particular event. I was just reminded about a conversation I had about how some will not make the call unless there is "significant contact".

I just wanted you to know the reason why I specifically used your comment.

So in your words, Peace!

You have to keep in mind there is a rule in the rulebook called "Incidental Contact." So contact must displace or be significant to give a foul. And on these plays I want more contact that actually knocks the player down, not them being kind of off balance and they fall. Total judgement call and if someone called this a foul I would certainly understand. I just do not think or hope I would make such a call. Heck under the right circumstances the player would not have to fall for me to call a foul either. But this is a constant thing I think we need to go through to decide if we should call a foul.

Peace

[MiamiWadeCounty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It looks to me like most of the contact was with his arms and the dunker's legs trying to shield him and because he was off balance the little contact makes him fall.

In a situation like this one, can a defender raise his arms vertically and stiffen them up to prevent a dunk?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by MiamiWadeCounty

In a situation like this one, can a defender raise his arms vertically and stiffen them up to prevent a dunk?

Yes, MWC. That's verticality. If he obtains legal guarding position before the shooter leaves the floor the defender has floor-to-ceiling rights. He can also duck, turn or shield himself with his arms.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Yes, MWC. That's verticality. If he obtains legal guarding position before the shooter leaves the floor the defender has floor-to-ceiling rights. He can also duck, torn or shield himself with his arms.

And, if contact is on those straight-up arms, it's not going to be a charge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MiamiWadeCounty

In a situation like this one, can a defender raise his arms vertically and stiffen them up to prevent a dunk?

It looked like to me he stuck his arms out in front and that was what made initial contact. That being said I will always give the defender some room or expect they will try to protect themselves or shield the contact.

Peace