The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   No call or foul? (Clips) (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/97880-no-call-foul-clips.html)

Sharpshooternes Fri May 09, 2014 01:11am
No call or foul? (Clips)
 
A1 pulls up for a jumper with B1 standing in front with arms up in LGP and arms inside cylinder. A1s forward motion of his shooting arm contacts B1's forearm affecting his shot. I called this a foul the other day and didn't feel good about it then and think I was wrong. Anyone share any thoughts on this or tricks to help with deciding what kind of arm contact is a foul, incidental or marginal?

JRutledge Fri May 09, 2014 01:13am
Do not penalize a defender for doing nothing illegal. Unless the defender was moving forward while the shooter left the floor, I see no reason to call a foul on them at all. The shooter should take a better shot.

Peace

APG Fri May 09, 2014 01:23am
In your opinion what did the defender do wrong?

Sharpshooternes Fri May 09, 2014 01:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by APG (Post 933734)
In your opinion what did the defender do wrong?
I have been focusing on really seeing what's happens with arms and picking up illegal arm contact. A trick or two that I have learned is to watch the defender's arm. If it doesn't get as high as the ball the contact is most likely illegal arm contact. Hand to hand contact after the ball is released and isn't excessive ( basically a high five) is nothing. Contact on the forearm or elbow while the shooter still has the ball is illegal is a foul. I was kind of focusing on these things and saw the defender hit the shooter ( or vice versa) on the forearm.

The defender in retrospect didn't do anything wrong and I should have no called it. Thanks for putting into words what I was thinking.

Camron Rust Fri May 09, 2014 01:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933735)
I have been focusing on really seeing what's happens with arms and picking up illegal arm contact. A trick or two that I have learned is to watch the defender's arm. If it doesn't get as high as the ball the contact is most likely illegal arm contact. Hand to hand contact after the ball is released and isn't excessive ( basically a high five) is nothing. Contact on the forearm or elbow while the shooter still has the ball is illegal is a foul. I was kind of focusing on these things and saw the defender hit the shooter ( or vice versa) on the forearm.

The defender in retrospect didn't do anything wrong and I should have no called it. Thanks for putting into words what I was thinking.
The height to which they raise their arm has no bearing on whether it is a foul or not. In fact, if they're going straight up from LGP, it should never be a foul, regardless of where the contact occurs. Any contact with the vertical arms of a defender in LGP is the fault of the shooter. It is probably not a foul on the shooter but it is most definitely not a foul on the defender.

Sharpshooternes Fri May 09, 2014 02:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 933736)
The height to which they raise their arm has no bearing on whether it is a foul or not. In fact, if they're going straight up from LGP, it should never be a foul, regardless of where the contact occurs. Any contact with the vertical arms of a defender in LGP is the fault of the shooter. It is probably not a foul on the shooter but it is most definitely not a foul on the defender.
Point taken

APG Fri May 09, 2014 08:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933735)
I have been focusing on really seeing what's happens with arms and picking up illegal arm contact. A trick or two that I have learned is to watch the defender's arm. If it doesn't get as high as the ball the contact is most likely illegal arm contact. Hand to hand contact after the ball is released and isn't excessive ( basically a high five) is nothing. Contact on the forearm or elbow while the shooter still has the ball is illegal is a foul. I was kind of focusing on these things and saw the defender hit the shooter ( or vice versa) on the forearm.

The defender in retrospect didn't do anything wrong and I should have no called it. Thanks for putting into words what I was thinking.
All that you're looking for there as far as point of contact and the shot is good (and I would suggest to keep doing that), but we still have to referee the defense and ascertain whether the defense has a legal position or not.

AremRed Fri May 09, 2014 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 933736)
The height to which they raise their arm has no bearing on whether it is a foul or not.
Hand level, not arm level. It helps determine blocked shot vs. foul when a player is trying to block the shot.

JRutledge Fri May 09, 2014 11:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 933763)
Hand level, not arm level. It helps determine blocked shot vs. foul when a player is trying to block the shot.
You lost me with this response.

If you are in your vertical plane, it is hard to have a different position with your hands than your hands.

Peace

Camron Rust Fri May 09, 2014 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 933763)
Hand level, not arm level. It helps determine blocked shot vs. foul when a player is trying to block the shot.
Irrelevant if the players hands are vertical as was asked in the OP. There was no question about an attempt to block the shot but A1's arms coming into B1's.

Quote:
B1 standing in front with arms up in LGP and arms inside cylinder. A1s forward motion of his shooting arm contacts B1's forearm affecting his shot.

Sharpshooternes Fri May 09, 2014 12:12pm
Can our video gurus post maybe a play involving slight arm contact that is illegal and perhaps some major contact that is legal?

JRutledge Fri May 09, 2014 12:29pm
I know of some verticality plays that have been posted here. Not sure the contact was only with the arms.

Peace

Sharpshooternes Fri May 09, 2014 01:04pm
And maybe while we are at it, I know a lot of newer officials, myself included struggle with a blocked shot+body contact=foul. If there is a clean block up top and then body contact that should be incidental correct? If the body contact occurs before the blocked shot this is a foul. How about from behind say on a breakaway: a blocked shot from behind with body contact that knocks the shooter off balance. What do you rule on this?

JRutledge Fri May 09, 2014 01:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933776)
And maybe while we are at it, I know a lot of newer officials, myself included struggle with a blocked shot+body contact=foul. If there is a clean block up top and then body contact that should be incidental correct?
That is what I believe, but there are people that disagree. To me a blocked shot of any kind had to be with some level of body contact if it is a one on one type block attempt. And when a bigger player is making a block, any contact with them is going to be more violent. I can tell you that if you play with bigger and faster players, that is usually the accepted point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933776)
If the body contact occurs before the blocked shot this is a foul. How about from behind say on a breakaway: a blocked shot from behind with body contact that knocks the shooter off balance. What do you rule on this?
If you illegally contact someone to make a play, then I have no problem calling a foul. But again there is going to be body contact on shots sometime. All contact even that has a player not in a legal position means you have to have a foul.

Peace

AremRed Fri May 09, 2014 01:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 933769)
Irrelevant if the players hands are vertical as was asked in the OP.
Which is why I wrote "when a player is trying to block the shot". Sharpshooternes is on the right track with the hand level thing, but it is used in a different situation than this verticality play he is talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933776)
And maybe while we are at it, I know a lot of newer officials, myself included struggle with a blocked shot+body contact=foul. If there is a clean block up top and then body contact that should be incidental correct? If the body contact occurs before the blocked shot this is a foul. How about from behind say on a breakaway: a blocked shot from behind with body contact that knocks the shooter off balance. What do you rule on this?
Ball then body is usually incidental (no-call). Body then ball could be a foul or no-call, depending on the amount/legality of contact and what you have called before.

Camron Rust Fri May 09, 2014 01:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 933778)
Ball then body is usually incidental (no-call). Body then ball could be a foul or no-call, depending on the amount/legality of contact and what you have called before.
Agree....with body first, you have to decide if that body contact enabled the block or not. If they would have not been able to get to the ball without going through the body, it should probably be a foul. If the would have blocked the ball either way, maybe not, depending on how much contact.

JetMetFan Fri May 09, 2014 03:32pm
Essentially it's a matter of displacement/did the defender gain an advantage that wasn't intended by rule? Put it this way, would we let a defender go through a ball-handler/dribbler to steal the ball? Most likely, no. Same thing with blocking a shot.

As for video, I'll check to see if anything in my list applies to Sharp's request.

APG Fri May 09, 2014 03:52pm
Note that many agreed that play three should have been a no call

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QqgmB82Vy2E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/7wh3gCDqnnw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/asM2m72DEyA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/vcgWuXf_bag" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DIgx-iYcnYA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Raymond Mon May 12, 2014 12:09am
I have fouls in the 3rd (Lebron) and 4th (Paplovic) videos.

Sharpshooternes Mon May 12, 2014 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 933859)
I have fouls in the 3rd (Lebron) and 4th (Paplovic) videos.
Can you please elaborate as to why?

rsl Mon May 12, 2014 09:03pm
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.

Raymond Mon May 12, 2014 09:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933860)
Can you please elaborate as to why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsl (Post 933907)
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.
In videos 3 & 4 I have B1 going through A1 to make the block, thus IMO, fouls.

Camron Rust Mon May 12, 2014 10:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 933908)
In videos 3 & 4 I have B1 going through A1 to make the block, thus IMO, fouls.
Agree.

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.

AremRed Mon May 12, 2014 11:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933860)
Can you please elaborate as to why?
I don't have fouls in the 3rd and 4th plays. I think the block happens first making the contact afterwards incidental.

I'm with Camron on the illegal screen by Splitter in the 1st video....his screen was 9 feet wide!

just another ref Mon May 12, 2014 11:45pm
1 & 2 are fouls. 3 is a no call. 4 is a travel.

rsl Tue May 13, 2014 12:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 933911)
I don't have fouls in the 3rd and 4th plays. I think the block happens first making the contact afterwards incidental.
I can see this, and I know when I make this kind of call it is not popular. Athletic blocks are entertaining, and most people only watch the contact on the ball. This is why I am very interested in hearing opinions from everyone here. Perhaps I should change the way I look at these calls.

Here are some of the applicable rules:

4-27-5 If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without
making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

4-45-6 The defender may not “belly up” or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a foul.

10-6-9 When a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight-line path, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble.

AremRed Tue May 13, 2014 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 933913)
1 & 2 are fouls. 3 is a no call. 4 is a travel.
I agree with you on 2 but not 4. Not under that rule set :P

just another ref Tue May 13, 2014 12:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 933916)
I agree with you on 2 but not 4. Not under that rule set :P
What rule set is that?

Camron Rust Tue May 13, 2014 01:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 933913)
1 & 2 are fouls. 3 is a no call. 4 is a travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 933916)
I agree with you on 2 but not 4. Not under that rule set :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 933917)
What rule set is that?
I don't see a travel in #4 in any rule set.

APG Tue May 13, 2014 06:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 933913)
1 & 2 are fouls. 3 is a no call. 4 is a travel.
I can tell you for a fact that play 1 was ruled a no call correct.

JRutledge Tue May 13, 2014 07:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsl (Post 933907)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 09:02am
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 Tue May 13, 2014 09:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 933925)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 09:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 933925)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 09:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 933925)

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? :D

Peace

jeremy341a Tue May 13, 2014 10:19am
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 Tue May 13, 2014 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by APG (Post 933928)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 933932)
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....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 897861)
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: http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...als-plays.html

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

JRutledge Tue May 13, 2014 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballgame99 (Post 933932)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 933930)
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?

AremRed Tue May 13, 2014 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 933930)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 933930)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 01:01pm
Disadvantage or not. That is the question.
 
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 Tue May 13, 2014 01:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933937)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 01:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933937)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 01:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933939)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 02:13pm
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

JRutledge Tue May 13, 2014 02:25pm
Quote:
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.
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 Tue May 13, 2014 02:30pm
Quote:
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
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 Tue May 13, 2014 02:33pm
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?

jeremy341a Tue May 13, 2014 02:36pm
Quote:
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.

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.

JRutledge Tue May 13, 2014 03:12pm
Quote:
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.
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

Sharpshooternes Tue May 13, 2014 04:02pm
Quote:
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?
Defender is moving toward the shooter.

JetMetFan Tue May 13, 2014 04:36pm
Quote:
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.
Given the way the play progressed I don't feel the contact put the shooter at a disadvantage.

BryanV21 Tue May 13, 2014 05:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 933972)
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 Tue May 13, 2014 08:49pm
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?

Sharpshooternes Wed May 14, 2014 05:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 933990)
Umm... ok, I guess. But that still does not convince me that no-calling this play is wrong.
Me neither but if the defender were to be called for anything on this play it would be for moving forward into the shooter.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1