Need some help on a blocked shot

[nmanzie]

Okay, I am the Lead on a two man crew. (I know... 2-man)....

White is on a breakaway steal and goes for a two-handed layup. While in the air, Green comes from behind and slaps the ball (and only ball) forward and out of bounds. On the way down, green and white tangle and fall to the floor. Green caused the tangle by having more speed than white in this situation, but touched all ball first.

What do you have? I called nothing because the ball was hit first. The reason I ask is because when they fell to the ground, white split his lip. I am not saying the split constitutes a foul, but I need to make sure I am calling this correctly.

Thanks.

[JRutledge]

I have always believed that if they get the ball first, unless they do something else or not basketball related to cause contact, we should not call a foul.

Some disagree with this, but if you see good athletes you will call a lot of fouls on them if we always expect perfect blocks with no contact.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by nmanzie

Okay, I am the Lead on a two man crew. (I know... 2-man)....

White is on a breakaway steal and goes for a two-handed layup. While in the air, Green comes from behind and slaps the ball (and only ball) forward and out of bounds. On the way down, green and white tangle and fall to the floor. Green caused the tangle by having more speed than white in this situation, but touched all ball first.

What do you have? I called nothing because the ball was hit first. The reason I ask is because when they fell to the ground, white split his lip. I am not saying the split constitutes a foul, but I need to make sure I am calling this correctly.

Thanks.

If green created so much contact after the blocked shot to cause them both to end up on the floor, I've likely got a foul on green and if that contact occurred before white returned to the floor, we are shooting 2. The split lip is irrelevant.

We must protect an airborne shooter all the way back to the floor. Green still had a responsibility to avoid the contact whether he blocked the shot or not.

[nmanzie]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

We must protect an airborne shooter all the way back to the floor. Green still had a responsibility to avoid the contact whether he blocked the shot or not.

So after yesterday, I think I might be in agreement to this. Contact after a blocked shot is one thing, but even though a clean block, it was still a disaster for the shooter.

I'd still like to see other opinions from all.

[jeremy341a]

I protect the shooter all the way to the floor. They have to let them land even no matter if they blocked the shot or not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by nmanzie

So after yesterday, I think I might be in agreement to this. Contact after a blocked shot is one thing, but even though a clean block, it was still a disaster for the shooter.

I'd still like to see other opinions from all.

Not all contact is illegal. It might be incidental. When someone blocks their shot, often that contact with the ball is going to make someone go off balance. If you want to call a foul you have the right to, but I do not consider all contact in these situations to be illegal. And I hope you are not making a decision just because a player might have gotten hurt. It is either a foul because it is a foul, not the end result. Legal plays can get players hurt. Basketball is a contact sport and we will have contact on blocked shot attempts, even if the block was basically clean.

Peace

[nmanzie]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not all contact is illegal. It might be incidental. When someone blocks their shot, often that contact with the ball is going to make someone go off balance. If you want to call a foul you have the right to, but I do not consider all contact in these situations to be illegal. And I hope you are not making a decision just because a player might have gotten hurt. It is either a foul because it is a foul, not the end result. Legal plays can get players hurt. Basketball is a contact sport and we will have contact on blocked shot attempts, even if the block was basically clean.

Peace

I'm not basing it because someone got hurt. I've been doing this too long to know that people will get hurt. But I am asking because I want to get it right. The player getting hurt just perked the question. This is teetering between losing balance and tangling (which is the way I called it) and a foul where it was green who created the contact to throw them both to the floor.

I appreciate everyone's input and would love to hear more. Thanks....

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by nmanzie

I'm not basing it because someone got hurt. I've been doing this too long to know that people will get hurt. But I am asking because I want to get it right. The player getting hurt just perked the question. This is teetering between losing balance and tangling (which is the way I called it) and a foul where it was green who created the contact to throw them both to the floor.

I appreciate everyone's input and would love to hear more. Thanks....

Me thinks that many of the responses you get are going to depend upon the picture the reader builds from the words. It seems to me (not a ref) that the details on the contact are going to matter a lot here on how they tangled. If the blocker was going up and over such that there was no way to block the shot without subsequently wiping out the shooter, I think that is pretty easily a foul. If there is minor contact from two players who fall because they are running at speed that seems to me not a foul. And there is a whole lot of grey in between those.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by nmanzie

I'm not basing it because someone got hurt. I've been doing this too long to know that people will get hurt. But I am asking because I want to get it right. The player getting hurt just perked the question. This is teetering between losing balance and tangling (which is the way I called it) and a foul where it was green who created the contact to throw them both to the floor.

I appreciate everyone's input and would love to hear more. Thanks....

Honestly this is a HTBT situations. I probably would make a call if I feel the action afterwards was not related to the initial block. But if it was apart of the block, then I likely call nothing. Players fall hard when they are blocked sometimes and there does not need to be body contact of any significance to have that happen. You saw the play, so you can best tell us what you thought why this all took place.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Me thinks that many of the responses you get are going to depend upon the picture the reader builds from the words. It seems to me (not a ref) that the details on the contact are going to matter a lot here on how they tangled. If the blocker was going up and over such that there was no way to block the shot without subsequently wiping out the shooter, I think that is pretty easily a foul. If there is minor contact from two players who fall because they are running at speed that seems to me not a foul. And there is a whole lot of grey in between those.

This.

And if the contact was after the shooter landed, I'm less likely to call it.
If the contact was after the shooter landed and after the ball was OOB, then it's ignored.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by nmanzie

Okay, I am the Lead on a two man crew. (I know... 2-man)....

White is on a breakaway steal and goes for a two-handed layup. While in the air, Green comes from behind and slaps the ball (and only ball) forward and out of bounds. On the way down, green and white tangle and fall to the floor. Green caused the tangle by having more speed than white in this situation, but touched all ball first.

What do you have? I called nothing because the ball was hit first. The reason I ask is because when they fell to the ground, white split his lip. I am not saying the split constitutes a foul, but I need to make sure I am calling this correctly.

Thanks.

White has the expectation to land safely. That's really all you need to know.

If I landed because of contact and it caused my lip to be split (read: draw blood), and you didn't call a defensive foul, you'd have to either T me as a player or T me as a coach.

Imho, this good basketball play played the ball first stuff is crap. A good basketball play is also not fouling after the block.

[Pantherdreams]

Feel like there are HTBT and there are some timing issues.

1 - Not only does he block the ball before contact but there may now be live dead ball status. Ie is the blocked ball creating an out of bounds before contact occurs. Now all contact is either incidental or (not sure of NFHS langauge here) Flagrant/Intentional. Can't have a common foul.

2 - OP describes contact on the way down. Who was on the way down shooter and shot blocker, just shot blocker? How far down was the shooter. Once his feet touch regardless of your ruling/feeling on the block he is no longer a shooter. So now contact is illegal contact created to a non-shooter where the ball is on its way out of bounds. Incdental changes.

[nmanzie]

Thanks all. This helps a lot. Again, I am about getting it right. Thanks.

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

A good basketball play is also not fouling after the block.

Jug: How far do you take the above on typical 1-on-1 defending a shot? Typically these are HTBT situations but I'm looking for guidance on when to whistle after a "clean" block that gets all ball but follows through with relatively minor arm or even torso bumping —well after the shot has been snuffed and ball and shooter are on their way back down. We're not talking wrist-hacking or arm-obliterating here.

I've been counseled back-and-forth by more veteran refs than me both ways. But most seem to hold once there's a clean block and the shot's clearly not basket-bound, ignore most contact afterward unless egregious. Yet sometimes there's significant contact. Thoughts?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Amesman

But most seem to hold once there's a clean block and the shot's clearly not basket-bound, ignore most contact afterward unless egregious. Yet sometimes there's significant contact. Thoughts?

Deciding when the contact becomes egregious / significant is part of the art of officiating -- and different officials will have different views of the same play.