You Make The Call (Blocked Shot and Contact)

[SWMOzebra]

Welcome to the forum, Ryan!

Originally Posted by dvboa

Looking back on it, I felt that I could have called a non-shooting foul for the contact following the block.

Hindsight is always 20-20. And in this case, I think you're correct. There's too much contact after the block to not put a whistle on this play IMO. If it's out of my PCA, then I'm letting my partner decide call or no-call, but if this play is in my coverage area then I'm calling a non-shooting foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by dvboa

Someone on the Facebook group had asked "would you foul out their best player on a play like this?" My answer would be, probably not. Would l call this type of foul early in a game? Yes I think I would.

Originally Posted by dvboa

In regards to fouls at certain times of the games - here are some of my thoughts. Hand checks, illegal screens and touch fouls should be called in the first quarter to clean up your game. However, if you have not called these fouls all game, DO NOT bring this type of call into the game in the fourth quarter, unless its intentional or flagrant. Introducing new types of fouls in the fourth quarter is too late.

Introducing a new type of foul in the fourth quarter is indeed too late. So why is it okay to introduce a no-call in the fourth for something that was a foul earlier?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

so what?



Really don't like this. jmo

Originally Posted by just another ref

Introducing a new type of foul in the fourth quarter is indeed too late. So why is it okay to introduce a no-call in the fourth for something that was a foul earlier?

I would not call this in the first quarter so I am good.

Peace

[Toren]

Originally Posted by dvboa

In regards to fouls at certain times of the games - here are some of my thoughts. Hand checks, illegal screens and touch fouls should be called in the first quarter to clean up your game. However, if you have not called these fouls all game, DO NOT bring this type of call into the game in the fourth quarter, unless its intentional or flagrant. Introducing new types of fouls in the fourth quarter is too late.

What about in situations where the first illegal screen is in the 4th quarter? Are you not calling it because it hasn't been called all game?

I don't mind calling a new foul at any point in the game as long as tape supports my call. What I do mind, is we as a crew haven't called a 3 second violation all game and then we get one in the 4th quarter. But that would be introducing a new violation into the game, which is different than what you stated.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by dvboa

My understanding of a forum like this is for the free exchange of ideas about how we officiate. To hide my philosophies would defeat this purpose. I would hope that others in this forum would feel the same way.

Judgement is in the eye of the beholder. Rules application is a different story. An out of bounds in the first quarter is still an out of bounds in the 4th quarter. But to hold our judgement to the same standard would be too ridged. We must be allowed the ability to adjust our judgement to the situation and in a way that best suits the game.

In regards to fouls at certain times of the games - here are some of my thoughts. Hand checks, illegal screens and touch fouls should be called in the first quarter to clean up your game. However, if you have not called these fouls all game, DO NOT bring this type of call into the game in the fourth quarter, unless its intentional or flagrant. Introducing new types of fouls in the fourth quarter is too late.

When it comes to removing a player from the game on his 5th foul, this foul better be good and it better be one that was obvious. It's not fair to the players or the game to disqualify a player with a touch foul, or a foul that only you saw. You may have called that touch foul in the first quarter on this player but you better call a good one on him in the fourth to foul him out. I would be surprised if you have never had a discussion about this with your partners during a pregame or post game. If this is the first time you've heard of such a philosophy then maybe you just don't have enough experience.

Now this philosophy doesn't apply to every situation in every game. Let say you have a player (i.e. football bench player) out there who is disrupting the game and causing all kinds of havoc and hard fouls, then maybe you need to get him out the game. So reverse the philosophy and get him dq'd on a quick one, "to make the game better". This is what judgement is all about, not just from play to play but also about how to keep the game running good, clean and fair.

Is it possible you're thinking too much?

Personally, I want *every* foul to be a quality foul that shows up on tape, whether in the middle of the second quarter or with 2 seconds left. I truly hope that if I call this play (or any play) a foul in the second quarter I'd have the stones to call it when the game's on the line.

There was a play exactly like the OP in tonight's Bulls-Heat game. The Birdman blocked a shot up high, but landed on the shooter. Foul called.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The Birdman blocked a shot up high, but landed on the shooter. Foul called ...

... because conservative minded officials always discriminate against players with tattoos, and mohawks, and the Birdman is the "king" of tattoos, and mohawks.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

There was a play exactly like the OP in tonight's Bulls-Heat game. The Birdman blocked a shot up high, but landed on the shooter. Foul called.

Two different plays. And two different environments.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

There was a play exactly like the OP in tonight's Bulls-Heat game. The Birdman blocked a shot up high, but landed on the shooter. Foul called.

Robinson was fouled before that block. Different play all together.

Peace

[JeffM]

Originally Posted by dvboa

Hey Brad,

This is Ryan, I'm the person who you so requested be slapped. I would like to apologize for wasting your time while you wait to watch the videos that I have put together for you and our officiating community. Most of these videos are not watched on the youtube page and are embedded in forums like these. Without the "time wasting" splash pages most would miss the question or the point to be made by the videos.
I hope you can forgive me. I just need to make sure all of our videos are understood and receive proper recognition for the many hours of hard work by our officials who record the games and for my many hours of hard work putting these together for the betterment of all.
I'm excited I found this site and look forward to being a positive contributing member of this forum.

Ryan

Thanks for producing these videos. I think they are very helpful as a means to see how other officials would call certain plays.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Two different plays.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Robinson was fouled before that block. Different play all together.

The foul was called on Anderson for landing on Nate. The whistle came after the block. Pretty similar to the OP play.

[APG]

I'd still consider those two plays as different.

[JeffM]

In general,

If I'm the Lead, I would call a shooting foul.

If I'm the C or the T, I'm not calling anything.

However, it would depend on the other calls that we have been making.

Either way, I'm expecting half the crowd to go nuts.

[JRutledge]

I see contact before the block. And Anderson was never in a legal spot. And the contact took place all at the same point. Two different plays.

And unless you talked to the official, you have no idea what the officials actually called this a foul for.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Two different plays for me, too, for the reasons JRut laid out.