I agree that this would not apply. Some body part has to be in the lead, and in this case it was the knee, but I see nothing unnatural about it.

I'm replaying and freezing with my play-cursor at about 5.75 seconds and the ball is still in the shooter's hand and the knee to the jaw/chest has just happened and the defender is already moving backward from the contact.

Is he moving laterally while the player was in the air?

Peace

Possibly, but I don't think definitively from the camera's view (defender's teammate is largely blocking the camera's view of the defender's feet). My point was simply that the shooter's knee to the defender, causing the defender to be moved backward and knocked down, happened before the ball was released/was in the basket - and that I don't see any other contact.

Not disputing the contact with the knee, but the movement of the legs were not unnatural or trying to create contact with the legs to get a foul. I do not equate this like a forearm shove to create space to make a play or get a shot off. It just looks to me from live that the defender slid over. Yes he might have been backing up slightly, but he cannot move into the shooter if he is airborne. As I said it is very close, but even with that contact it is not egregious to warrant an automatic foul from me either way.

Peace

Hello... :D

Hmm, don't think you're quite right on that one. Observe the point of contact:

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5...psd0499e29.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5...ps98886cd2.jpg

The guy basically takes a knee to the face, which is why he's down for the count after the dunk.

Full speed, I think the defender is late.

So I have no problem with a no-call - seems cruel on this specific play for the guy to get plowed in the face, get dunked on, AND take the foul :D

Nothing in the rule says that getting hit in the face is an automatic foul. Just like it would not be with an elbow if a player is legally doing what they are allowed to do. So getting hit in the face is not a good reason to simply call a foul.

Peace

Better answer:

"You know, you're right...I said the contact took place after the dunk, and I was clearly wrong."

No, contact in itself is not a foul. Again there are rules at play here, not some issue of when or if contact took place.

Peace

:rolleyes: Whatever.

So you call a hand-check at the moment of contact? Or do you call a hand-check when the contact displaces or moved the ball handler? RSBQ anyone?

The issue is not when contact first took place, it is when the contact displaced the player.

And if this upsets you, then when you work your games you stop the tape and then look at different angles and make a call. For the rest of us we will get one shot at the call and decide when contact caused displacement. And the issue of a knee hitting someone is the most irrelevant part of this discussion honestly. I guess we are going to penalize him because he can jump? :rolleyes:

Peace

Whatever.

You said the contact happened after the dunk.

The video clearly shows otherwise.

And you still won't say your comment was incorrect.

Not gonna split hairs with you, because I know you'd rather disembowel yourself with a spoon than admit you made a mistake. Even though I agreed with your ultimate application of the rules.

I'm done.

Whatever.

OK, then the displacement did not take place until after the dunk. Is that better? Does that make you feel better. And the fact you are worried about such a minor point tells me everything I need to know (while you agreed with my take on the play). Some people love to be so childish on this site sometimes.

Peace

You're really stretching it here to justify your earlier statement.

No matter how you slice it the potentially fouling contact was well before the ball was through the hoop.

It may be the case that a lot of officials will not call that a foul but such a stance is not rules based....the defender did everything they needed to do to draw the charge (assuming they were there in time...and if they were not, it should have been a block).