Need some help on a blocked shot

nmanzie

Whistles & Stripes wrote
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

nmanzie wrote
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

JRutledge wrote
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

nmanzie wrote
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

nmanzie wrote
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

so cal lurker wrote
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

nmanzie wrote
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

JugglingReferee wrote
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

Amesman wrote
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.

VaTerp

so cal lurker wrote
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.

Agreed.

I'm in the camp that is more likely to pass on a foul that involves a clean block up top with some contact below but this is a HTBT situation.

I will say though that the fact the play from the defender "from behind" makes it more likely that I have a foul on this play.

But again tough to say with out seeing the specific play in question.

ETA- And as others have suggested, the level of play is also a significant factor here. With bigger and more athletic players you are going to see, and assigners and coaches expect, more contact to be deemed marginal or incidental.

JugglingReferee

Amesman wrote
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?

If there is contact after the block, but A still lands with ease, then I pass on it. Arm contact rarely, if ever, affects a landing. Torso bumping will though. At higher levels, I let more go. And each game is different - it depends on how the game is going, and if similar contact has been called at other times in the game.

Egregious contact warranting a foul would let too much contact go, imho. (Thinking of how basketball is played in my area.) It is a htbt issue, as you say.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Amesman wrote
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?

Here is the answer to your question: If the defender did not block the shot, would you call a foul? If you would then the defender fouled even though he blocked the shot. The only clean block is one in which the defender did not foul the shooter.

MTD, Sr.

Ref_in_Alberta

Airborne shooter has the right to land safely. Defender has the responsibility to not take away the RSBQ of the offense. In theory... players put or taken to the floor due to contact 99.98% of the time makes said contact illegal and therefore a foul should be called.

bob jenkins

Ref_in_Alberta wrote
Airborne shooter has the right to land safely. Defender has the responsibility to not take away the RSBQ of the offense. In theory... players put or taken to the floor due to contact 99.98% of the time makes said contact illegal and therefore a foul should be called.

I think this is key. Sometimes, it's the legal contact on the ball (still in the player's hand) that causes enough of an effect on balance to take the player to the floor.

Johnny Ringo

This is an action my partners and I have discussed at length in the past.

In order to get to a position to block shot and the result after that blocked shot results in contact to the offensive player attempting a try - IMO this is an advantage to the defense.

Especially, if there is enough contact that sends the offensive player to the floor.

I would call a foul.

Camron Rust

JRutledge wrote
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

Really good athletes block the shot without creating such contact. 😉

No, I don't call fouls for minor contact in the process of blocking a shot, but knocking someone down from behind in the process of blocking a shot is too much.

JRutledge

Camron Rust wrote
Really good athletes block the shot without creating such contact. 😉

No, I don't call fouls for minor contact in the process of blocking a shot, but knocking someone down from behind in the process of blocking a shot is too much.

I did not say they created the contact. When you have guys coming in hard to the basket and someone is in front of them, some contact is going to take place. And falling to the floor is not a good judge if the shooter is coming hard into bigger bodies or a lot of bodies. It happen tonight in my games where a smaller kid came into a much bigger kid (size and height) and clearly was displaced by a legal defender (fell hard). We did not call a foul. No one said a word. 😉

Peace