No call or foul? (Clips)

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

I don't think you can say the defender beat him into the spot as he most definitely moved into his path after he began his upward motion. He would have only fallen backwards if the defender was in front of him to begin with.

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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.

Given the way the play progressed I don't feel the contact put the shooter at a disadvantage.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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.

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

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[jeremy341a]

What if the player is dribbling a ball at the top of the key. The defender charges him and slaps the ball away. A moment later the defender on the same path that allowed him to move in quickly enough to knock the ball away then runs into the offensive player and knock him down. Are we to also ignore this contact because the ball was already knocked away making everything that happens after incidental?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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.

These would not be seen as good calls for bigger school varsity boy's basketball.

Again, not a hard-fast rule as was stated, but I saw nothing that was egregious or over the top that had to be called.

Peace

[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?

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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?

Defender is moving toward the shooter.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Defender is moving toward the shooter.

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

[jeremy341a]

9:45 remaking in 1st quarter of clippers/thunder game there was a block called a foul in a similar play to these. Could someone post the video so we can discuss this play?