You Make The Call (Blocked Shot and Contact)

[APG]

Courtesy of Desert Valley Basketball Officials Association:

[JRutledge]

I got nothing.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I got nothing.

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.

[JugglingReferee]

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

[JetMetFan]

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 and 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[canuckrefguy]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

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.

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

[Raymond]

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