Loose Ball: Foul or Not

[APG]

Do you have a foul here or not?

[JetMetFan]

For an NBA game I can see not calling the foul but if you don't call the foul, call the travel.

For NCAA/HS, call the foul.

[grunewar]

The new L appears to got caught well behind the play and the various camera angles show just how important positioning is IMO. From the first few long angles the contact didn't look as bad, almost like Blake cut in front of the player and the contact was incidental. However, the last few angles showed the contact pretty well.

In Fed, by not making the foul call and calling either travel or out of bounds, the right team gets posession. In bound the ball and move on.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

... by not making the foul call and calling either travel or out of bounds, the right team gets possession. In bound the ball and move on.

I might have done this thirty years ago, but my local board has moved toward not ignoring illegal action because the "right" team ended up with the ball. There are way too many cameras out there and I don't want to have to explain my way out of a situation. If I miss a call, then I miss a call, but I'm no longer going to pretend to miss a call that I really didn't miss.

[grunewar]

Billy, I don't necessarily disagree. But from where the official was, he might not have seen the contact as clearly. As I said, initially, it looked like Blake cut in front of him. We don't have the use of all of those cameras to make a call on ths spot.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by grunewar

The new L appears to got caught well behind the play and the various camera angles show just how important positioning is IMO.

I don't know if positioning is a huge issue here. I've heard it a lot the past couple of years: officiate what's in front of you, not what may happen. There was a scramble on the floor and he stuck with it until it became apparent Houston had the ball. By the time he turned to go guys were already at the division line. It happens. I don't think his angle was that bad that he couldn't see Blake's contact on Lin.

[bob jenkins]

No foul.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

For an NBA game I can see not calling the foul but if you don't call the foul, call the travel.

For NCAA/HS, call the foul.

Why the difference?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No foul.

Why no foul?

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No foul.

The contact does not seem incidental to me and creates and advantage in going for the loose ball. I would call this foul at any level.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I don't know if positioning is a huge issue here. I've heard it a lot the past couple of years: officiate what's in front of you, not what may happen. There was a scramble on the floor and he stuck with it until it became apparent Houston had the ball. By the time he turned to go guys were already at the division line. It happens. I don't think his angle was that bad that he couldn't see Blake's contact on Lin.

I agree with you that the official was correct in staying with the play during the scramble for the loose ball and that Houston controlling the ball put him at a huge disadvantage relative to the players that were already leaking out to go the other way.

I have to disagree when you say that his angle wasn't so bad that he couldn't see Blake's contact. From where he was at, he probably could see the contact, but I don't think he could see how much better postion Lin was in to get to this ball than Blake. From the angle the official was at, which is pretty similar to the first views of the play, this looks like a 50/50 play and I would go with incidental contact if that was our only view. I am not faulting the official from going with that call based on where he was. With the benefit of looking at the replay from the other angles it is clear that Lin is going to get the ball until Blake contacts him from a disadvantageous position. Therefore, I think the correct call was a foul on Blake. Again, given the circumstances and the positioning of the official, I think he made the best decision he could based on what he could see.

[NCHSAA]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No foul.

I agree. Equal and favorable positions, both shoulders come in and meet and the player in front has the better chance of gaining posession of the loose ball. White just takes the fall because of the course of play, not illegal action. An ex-NBA official once instructed to follow the path of the players during loose ball plays (straight line run toward the ball, angle, etc.) and also consider their speed.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why the difference?

Mainly because it's the NBA. I wouldn't be against a call but a no-call isn't a shock.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why the difference?Why no foul?

Incidental contact. Esp. article 2.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Billy, I don't necessarily disagree. But from where the official was, he might not have seen the contact as clearly. As I said, initially, it looked like Blake cut in front of him. We don't have the use of all of those cameras to make a call on this spot.

I probably should have worded my post better. What I probably should have said was the official should have called the first illegal action that he observed, be it the first contact, the second contact, the steps, or the out of bounds.

NFHS. I would call a foul on this play. If I had the endline angle and the play coming toward me I would call an intentional foul based on 4-19-3a, "Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position", and 4-19-3d, "Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball".

Blake may appear to be ahead of Lin in the race to the ball, but Lin still has an obvious advantageous position to try to secure the ball. Instead of Blake going directly for the ball, he initiates contact into Lin prior to playing the ball, to have an uncontested chance at securing the ball.