You Make The Call (Blocked Shot and Contact)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

JRut, Might you give us some insight/particulars to the comments by the clinicials that spoke about those similar plays?

For the most part they do not want contact on plays where a clean block takes place. Unless the contact helped the block like a push while the player was trying to block, but that did not take place here.

Peace

[Brad]

Don't think I have a foul on the contact, but I probably whack him for the staredown afterwards.

Also, someone please slap whoever is doing these videos... 41 seconds of video, of which 10 seconds is a splash screen intro and 10 seconds is a splash screen outro. Completely unnecessary — just post the 20 seconds of relevant video and put the text / question under the video in the description section on YouTube!!

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Brad

Don't think I have a foul on the contact, but I probably whack him for the staredown afterwards.

Funny you mention the staredown, I have to admit...and I might be crazy...

...it almost looks like the defensive player tries to kick or at least make an aggressive downward motion with his foot at the shooter as they're returning to the floor. The defender is looking down at the shooter and it almost looks like he's trying to throw in a "lil extra bidniss" in after the block. The staredown kind of confirms an attempt to intimidate.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Brad

Don't think I have a foul on the contact, but I probably whack him for the staredown afterwards.

Also, someone please slap whoever is doing these videos... 41 seconds of video, of which 10 seconds is a splash screen intro and 10 seconds is a splash screen outro. Completely unnecessary — just post the 20 seconds of relevant video and put the text / question under the video in the description section on YouTube!!

I have found these videos (from this conference) to be fantastic. Suspect the splashscreen is consistent thoughout their videos, whether the play is a 10 second clip or a full 90 minute game.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

i got nothing.

+1

[Rob1968]

I didn't interpret the shooter's movements, after landing, as a staredown. To me, it appears that he momentarily glances towards the Lead official, and then at the defender, and the loose swing of the left arm denotes little if any muscular tension in his shoulders, which would usually be noted in a staredown / "I just showed you up" stance. He almost looks concerned about the welfare of the defender - perhaps because he knew he had clipped him in the head (?)
(Yeah, I do get overly analytical at times . . .)

[johnny d]

I have nothing on this play either. The contact occurs after the shooter has already landed, the ball is clearly going out of bounds, and while it may be severe (only because of contact to the head) it is incidental.

[#olderthanilook]

OOB.
Spot throw for blue.

[just another ref]

I think you have to call this. Defender can't go through the shooter in the aftermath. Slow motion says after the shot, but calling it in real time I probably would have given him two.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think you have to call this. Defender can't go through the shooter in the aftermath. Slow motion says after the shot, but calling it in real time I probably would have given him two.

I think you have to pass on this and it's a great example of a patient whistle. Contact is after the shooter lands, and looks worse than it really is.

I played HS basketball as a 5'10 pg. If I went to the lane like this and got my shot blocked I wouldnt expect a call and my coach and teamates wouldnt expect a call other than OOB and let's set up the inbound play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think you have to call this. Defender can't go through the shooter in the aftermath. Slow motion says after the shot, but calling it in real time I probably would have given him two.

You do not have to call anything if you choose not to. If the only reason we are calling fouls are because of the amount of the contact, then we are not following the rules as written as so many people here want to suggest we must do all the time under every circumstances.

Peace

[Toren]

I got nothing on this.

But knowing the history of these two teams, how the rest of the earlier game played out, would make a difference.

If this was an isolated situation and the rest of the game played out without incident, this is a no call all day for me.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You do not have to call anything if you choose not to. If the only reason we are calling fouls are because of the amount of the contact, then we are not following the rules as written as so many people here want to suggest we must do all the time under every circumstances.

Peace

I already quoted the rule which I see as applicable.

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-27-5: If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

That's exactly what happened here. When you knock a guy to the floor while executing a "clean block" it is no longer clean.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...
That's exactly what happened here. When you knock a guy to the floor while executing a "clean block" it is no longer clean.

Of course, that's just your opinion, or maybe how you're expected to call things for those you work for.

Also, the rule you are quoting is "Incidental Contact" and that entire rule is based on the judgment of the officials.

[Tio]

This play falls into the category of one you "don't want to see again in the game." It is a foul. If we have blocked shot with marginal contact, then absolutely no-call would be the correct response. The contact in this play is not marginal.