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.

[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.

[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

[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 . . .)

[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.

[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!!