You Make The Call (Blocked Shot and Contact)
 

Courtesy of Desert Valley Basketball Officials Association:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/aC0tbzn8IE4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I got nothing.

Peace

To be honest, I cannot tell from the video of there was contact or not. That said, if there was contact, then I have a foul; the only other concern I have in this play is whether that contact came while the shooter was airborne or had he returned to the floor before the illegal contact.

MTD, Sr.

Peace Be With You ...
 

I realize from many of your past posts that this is your philosophy (clean block on top, contact below doesn't effect the shot), and probably that of many of the officials in your Chicagoland area, and I give you credit for remaining firm in your convictions, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Yes the shot wasn't effected because the block above was clean, in fact, quite clean, but the defenders knee hit the shooter in the head, while the shooter was airborne. The shooter was knocked to the ground and had no chance to continue playing offense, or defense, a disadvantage not allowed by the rules, and thus a foul for illegal contact, not incidental contact, in my humble opinion.

Like MTD, I'm not sure if there was contact. But if there was, I most definitely have a foul.

1. I'm not sure whether there was contact, even after the slow motion replays.

2. If there was contact I have it after the shooter returned to the floor. He wasn't exactly airborne for a long time.

I have no doubt there was contact. He clobbered the back of his head with his knee.

I do agree that a lot of blocked shots can be followed by contact that isn't a foul but that one needs to be a foul.

+1

Airborne shooter gets kneed in the head.

I was at a college camp this weekend and we had similar plays and the clinicians were not from Chicago that spoke about those plays. And if you and others want to call this a foul, so be it. It just will not be me blowing the whistle. If it is a normal part of the play, I consider this incidental contact (which can be severe by rule).

Peace

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

Certain The Throw Is Unsuccessful ???
 

I'm not going to presume to speak for JRutledge, but from his past posts, I'm sure that he'll point to this:

The try ends when the throw is successful, when it is certain the
throw is unsuccessful, when the thrown ball touches the floor, or when the ball
becomes dead.

Whereas, I prefer to point to this:

An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try
for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.
The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting.

JRutledge's philosophy (clean block on top, contact below doesn't effect the shot, no foul) here on the Forum has been very consistent over the years, and, again, I give him credit for remaining firm in his convictions. But I still disagree with him.

With regard to this being incidental contact, I think this would apply:

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.

I think it all boils down to judgement on what incidental contact is.

There's the philosophy that, on this play, if you can't make the shot block without the knee contact to the shooter's head, then you shouldn't be allowed to make the shot block.

The other philosophy is that the defender made an athletic play that was squeaky clean, and once the shot ends, any non-severe contact should be disregarded.

My rationale for calling a foul here is that the shooter is in a vulnerable position and takes pretty severe contact to the head.

But I totally get why there would be no call - with the blessing of everybody in the building - in a good hard, physical game.

Where Is JRutledge When You Need Him The Most ???
 

Once JRutledge finishes mowing his lawn, and logs onto the Forum, I bet that he will say, pretty much, the same thing.

There is definitely contact AFTER A1 lands. So if you call a foul it is not a shooting foul.

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

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!!

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.

Disagree
 

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.

Oob
 

+1

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 . . .);)

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.

OOB.
Spot throw for blue.

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.

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 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.

I already quoted the rule which I see as applicable.

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.

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.

It's A Close Call ...
 

This is a tough one, but if that's what you see, then fine, but it's not what I see. I see the defender's right hip making contact with the shooter before the shooter returns to the floor. It is also my opinion that the defender's knee makes contact with the shooter, also before the shooter returns to the floor, but this aspect of the play is much closer, and I may be mistaken. Bottom line: Contact before the shooter returns to the floor, but I don't have any problems with anybody seeing it differently, especially in real time.

One way, or another, that takes care of the "act of shooting" foul. Even if the shooter wasn't fouled in the act of shooting, he still got fouled before the ball hit out of bounds, and became dead. Illegal (not incidental) live ball contact, is a foul, even if it's not intentional, or flagrant, and should be called.

If the offensive player got knocked down in this manner while setting a screen, or going for a rebound, or diving to save a ball about to go out of bounds, or simply cutting across the lane, a foul would be called, so why not here?

Some less experienced officials might even consider a "hard" intentional foul here, but that's for another discussion.

I am having a hard time seeing this one as a play-on. Too much contact as the defender basically lands on the shooter and knocks him to the floor. Yes it is a nice block, but that's just too much contact.

+1

You can put me down in the no call camp.

Seems to me to be a lot like a pass and crash where the pass is going to end up 3 rows into the bleachers, but as the contact doesn't have a clear and immediate impact on the play or put any one at a disadvantage then I'm passing.

Now if you are concerned about the level/ placement of contact and rough play I guess I could buy that just doesn't fall on my radar that way.

I supposed I deserved to be slapped!
 

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

Ryan, welcome to the forum. My suggestion wouldn't be to remove the splash pages; but maybe to make them shorter (5 seconds as opposed to 10, for example.)

Welcome to the forum. While colorful, I believe what Brad was referring to is that you could shorten these considerably and still get the information across that you wish to by making use of the Description field on YouTube itself.

If that doesn't work the way you want it to, I'm sure the 10 seconds could be shortened somewhat and still accomplish what you wish to accomplish.

Hey guys,

I appreciate the feedback minus the physical abuse I would have gotten from Brad. All good ideas. I chose 10 seconds because people read at different speeds and I wanted to give everyone, including us speed readers, the opportunity to digest the words. Fortunately with youtube we can scroll the video forwards and backwards allowing us to skip over the 10 seconds, technology is awesome!
I will however take your advice and try 5 second splash pages, just for my new friends here at officiating.com!

Ryan

Ryan,

So what was the verdict from your association on this play? Should a foul be called or not?

Actually, I was the calling or non-calling official on this play. Looking back on it, I felt that I could have called a non-shooting foul for the contact following the block. The coach of the player that got hit was upset there was a no-call but we had been allowing contact like this throughout the game on both sides of the floor.
I'm positive I would have gotten boos from the home fans for a call here but the video would back me up.
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.
To some, a foul is a foul is a foul. I wish officiating were that easy. I try to take into account all the variables (i.e. time, score, player foul count...) when determining what to call and when.
So there is no easy answer to this play. So the best answer I can give to "is this a foul?" would be "it depends..."

so what?

Really don't like this. jmo

[QUOTE=

Really don't like this. jmo[/QUOTE]

Ok.

So a foul early in the game may not be a foul late in the game for you?

I find it hard to believe that you'd have this philosophy -- and even if you did that you'd be so open about it.

The idea that a fifth foul should somehow have more of a threshold isn't an uncommon philosophy; especially on the best player. Personally, I think if he's the best player, he should know how to not get a foul called when he has four. The only time those here advocate for such a philosophy is if he is the only thing on the losing team keeping your game from falling apart in a major blowout.

Other than that, I don't have to worry about it. And I've had no problem telling a coach on a play like this that he was fine until he went through the shooter.

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.

Welcome to the forum, Ryan!

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.

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

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.

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.

I Thought That They Closed Alcatraz ???
 

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

Two different plays. And two different environments.

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

Peace

I really appreciate these videos
 

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

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

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KlCvQW57Uv8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'd still consider those two plays as different.

Shooting Foul if I'm the lead
 

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.

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

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