Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 933946)

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 933909)

In #1, the only fouls I see are illegal screens...the second of which (by #22) had a big part to do with the shooter getting open for the pass.

Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 933946)

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 933959)

That would be incorrect. The NBA has better athletes. But to suggest that the NBA allows more contact is completely incorrect. NBA officials protect the shooter a lot better than other levels in my and other's opinion.

Also most experienced officials do not spend their time talking about what is different at each levels. I call the exact same game at the college level that I call at the HS level. I would call these plays at the HS level the same as I would in the college level.

Peace

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 933957)

On play #4 you can contend the defender actually made it to the "spot" (in the air) first. I can see calling the foul on the defender if he jumped toward the shooter, but he didn't. If he did the shooter would've fallen backwards. Now, I might be more sensitive to the head contact with younger players but with older BV players probably not. It would be considered more "the price of doing business" against a player who is nearly a foot taller. My attitude towards the head contact in NCAAW/GV (for me) game would be different but that's because we've been told how to handle those situations.



I completely understand why no fouls were called on the screens by Ginóbili and Splitter, especially when remembering this past season's NCAAW breakout video on screening. The part of the rule D. Williamson really emphasized when talking about screens was did the screener "contact and delay" the opponent. Ginóbili and Splitter (#1) made contact on Allen but didn't delay him from getting where he wanted to go. Splitter's second screen did both, though not initially, but Allen stopped trying to get around it. If he keeps making the attempt then there's a chance Splitter is called for a foul.

Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 933961)

I was referencing the plays at the basket like these and I stand by my statement that the NBA allows more contact on these plays then you typically see at high school level at least in my area.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 933942)

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?

Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 933963)

I am not including the contact to the head as to why I believe this is a foul. However I would like to hear why you feel that it should not be one.

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933972)

Defender is moving toward the shooter.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 933990)

Umm... ok, I guess. But that still does not convince me that no-calling this play is wrong.