No call or foul? (Clips)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rsl

You guys are smarter than I am, so I tend to listen. But I am confused by this thread.

Why does a defender get a pass on contact that caused displacement just because he gets ball first?

In both videos (3 & 4), the defender clearly displaces the shooter, and would not never have gotten there in time to make the block if they had not overrun the shooter.

What part the rule is not met for a foul? I have contact, displacement, and disadvantage.

First of all I disagree that those are clear displacement. All contact is not a foul and I disagree with BNR that those are fouls. I think those are normal contact plays with a block. And the LeBron play IMO is clearly not a foul. Not only was the shooter not knocked to the floor, but the contact started with the ball. Nothing affected the movement of the player at all. The second play was more a shooter taking a contested shot going out of bounds. He would have feel with or without contact.

And if I were to call thos fouls, in my world of officiating, I would be ripped apart for making those calls, especially the first one by my respected peers. You cannot expect there is not going to be contact on block attempts. It is unrealistic IMO.

Peace

[ballgame99]

1) foul on Bosh, there is more than incidental contact caused by the defender. Dumb foul since there was very little chance that shot would have been successful and he was in good position to contest with no foul (I understand this was no-called). Also agree with the two illegal screens that occur prior.

2) foul on Ibaka, more than incidental contact caused by the defender who did not obtain LGP prior to the shooter leaving the floor.

3) I'm 50/50 on this one, but probably no call it.

4) another 50/50 that I probably no call.

5) foul on Robinson because I dislike kU a great deal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

1) foul on Bosh, there is more than incidental contact caused by the defender. Dumb foul since there was very little chance that shot would have been successful and he was in good position to contest with no foul (I understand this was no-called). Also agree with the two illegal screens that occur prior.
...

This was correctly no-called according to the NBA. I was at a camp where the video was broken down by someone from the NBA officiating offices.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

1) foul on Bosh, there is more than incidental contact caused by the defender. Dumb foul since there was very little chance that shot would have been successful and he was in good position to contest with no foul (I understand this was no-called). Also agree with the two illegal screens that occur prior.

Similar to BNR, went to a camp where someone from the league offices said this was a no call correct. Even went so far as to joke that if the official on the play called a foul, it would have been his final game for the series.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

5) foul on Robinson because I dislike kU a great deal.

So if the player was from Arkansas, you still would not call a foul?

Peace

[jeremy341a]

I don't understand why we ignore major contact just because the ball it reached first. If the defender doesn't take the path that leads them into the offensive player then they never can reach the ball in time. Therefore their path which lead them into the offensive player definitely put the offensive at a disadvantage.

For example play 2. If he doesn't take the path that causes the contact he can't get to the ball and/or challenge the shot. If he does that on a 3 pt shooter it is a clear foul. Does not protecting the shooter as well as giving them a place to lane apply to all players or just jump shooters?

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by APG

Similar to BNR, went to a camp where someone from the league offices said this was a no call correct. Even went so far as to joke that if the official on the play called a foul, it would have been his final game for the series.

I'm sure you are correct, but that tells me the NBA is less concerned about what is/is not a foul. I'm sure if that official had called one of those two illegal screens he would have been banished as well. It seems being 'big time' requires a good sense of when to swallow your whistle and 'let the players decide the game' instead of just calling what you see. But in my high school game that is a foul.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I'm sure you are correct, but that tells me the NBA is less concerned about what is/is not a foul. I'm sure if that official had called one of those two illegal screens he would have been banished as well. It seems being 'big time' requires a good sense of when to swallow your whistle and 'let the players decide the game' instead of just calling what you see. But in my high school game that is a foul.

Your first statement makes no sense to me...but to each their own. The NBA is concerned with their officials getting calls correct. This isn't about being "big time" nor swallowing your whistle. In the NBA, that's contact incident to the block. Oh and when we discussed this very play last year, these were your thoughts....

Originally Posted by ballgame99

3) good no call, it looks like a lot of contact, but most of Green's backward motion is due to the force of the shot being blocked like it was, not body contact.

Thread: Game 6 NBA Finals Plays

What, in your opinion, has changed your mind from last year to this year?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I'm sure you are correct, but that tells me the NBA is less concerned about what is/is not a foul. I'm sure if that official had called one of those two illegal screens he would have been banished as well. It seems being 'big time' requires a good sense of when to swallow your whistle and 'let the players decide the game' instead of just calling what you see. But in my high school game that is a foul.

Actually the NBA calls more illegal screens than I see called at most other levels.

Honestly, a lot of things get called in NBA games that I almost never see called regularly at high school games. High school officials often talk about not "being there very long" and are worried about the length of their games and getting to the bar. I do not think the NBA officials really care about how long their game takes in the same fashion.

There is this big myth that high school we are so pure and righteous in the way we call the game.

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I don't understand why we ignore major contact just because the ball it reached first. If the defender doesn't take the path that leads them into the offensive player then they never can reach the ball in time. Therefore their path which lead them into the offensive player definitely put the offensive at a disadvantage.

For example play 2. If he doesn't take the path that causes the contact he can't get to the ball and/or challenge the shot. If he does that on a 3 pt shooter it is a clear foul. Does not protecting the shooter as well as giving them a place to lane apply to all players or just jump shooters?

Let's take this lane for a moment as I am curious. A1 jumps straight up for a three point attempt. B1 jumps directly toward the shooter and gets a hand on the ball forcing A1 to start to fall backward. There legs contact eac other after the shot is blocked and A1 goes to the floor. What is the call?

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I don't understand why we ignore major contact just because the ball it reached first. If the defender doesn't take the path that leads them into the offensive player then they never can reach the ball in time. Therefore their path which lead them into the offensive player definitely put the offensive at a disadvantage.

I guess it depends how you define "major". It's definitely major contact to block a 3 point shot and then run through the shooter. Is the contact in these videos major? Maybe in my games, but not at that level.

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

For example play 2. If he doesn't take the path that causes the contact he can't get to the ball and/or challenge the shot. If he does that on a 3 pt shooter it is a clear foul. Does not protecting the shooter as well as giving them a place to lane apply to all players or just jump shooters?

I believe 2 is a foul, body then ball. That's not a hard and fast rule however, but with the athleticism at this level they can take (and expect) lots of incidental contact on blocked shot plays.

[Sharpshooternes]

I think what those of us who think these plays are no calls is that there was no disadvantage on the play, thus no foul. If the shot is blocked cleanly and the defense hasn't done anything illegal, then any other contact ( unless intentional or flagrant) is thus incidental to the play and should be a no call. The shot is blocked either way, whether there is a foul or not after the fact.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Let's take this lane for a moment as I am curious. A1 jumps straight up for a three point attempt. B1 jumps directly toward the shooter and gets a hand on the ball forcing A1 to start to fall backward. There legs contact eac other after the shot is blocked and A1 goes to the floor. What is the call?

I would deem the contact between the players' legs to be incidental. The leg contact had nothing to do with the shooting motion of A1.

And I'll reiterate a favorite question around here... what did the defender do wrong?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Let's take this lane for a moment as I am curious. A1 jumps straight up for a three point attempt. B1 jumps directly toward the shooter and gets a hand on the ball forcing A1 to start to fall backward. There legs contact eac other after the shot is blocked and A1 goes to the floor. What is the call?

I call this incidental as the leg contact was only caused by the new path of the falling player.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I think what those of us who think these plays are no calls is that there was no disadvantage on the play, thus no foul. If the shot is blocked cleanly and the defense hasn't done anything illegal, then any other contact ( unless intentional or flagrant) is thus incidental to the play and should be a no call. The shot is blocked either way, whether there is a foul or not after the fact.

But I contend on some of these plays the defense has done something illegal. The unless intentional or flagrant line refers to dead ball contact and not contact after the ball is blocked.

Someone address my point. If the defense it taking a path that causing them to displace the offensive player but allows this to block the ball how is that not a disadvantage to the offensive player? Play #4 for instance if the defender doesn't take the path that knocks the offensive player down he never blocks the shot. The fact that he hit the ball clean, ignoring the head hit on the follow through, is irrelevant to the fact that he went through the offensive player not only displacing him but also not allowing him a safe landing.

I understand that in the NBA that more contact is allowed on these types of plays. I am expressing my opinion on these plays as if they took place at the High school level.