LeBron

[RAcker]

(5) Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm. - this is addressing hand to waist, etc - but is applicable to our discussion.

e. Contact which occurs on the hand of the offensive player, while that hand is in contact with the ball, is legal.

I agree with a hand touch.  I thought we were talking about a hit across the arm?

come on now, don't try to change what you were saying now to try to explain it away. You disagreed with him that ANY contact post shot is a foul.

I'm sorry racker, he's right. If it doesn't affect the shooters follow through and the shot has been blocked, its not a foul.

thats why your examples of intentianl hard whacks to the arm, nut shots, whacks across the face, and other crazy stuff made no sense in context, those are all clearly detrmental to the shooter and intentional.

your wrong on this issue racker, if your not post the rule you think you know inside and out.

Crownsy, be fair.  He's talking about incidental contact on loose balls and I'm talking about the definition of "act of shooting".  Give me a minute in the rule book and I'll show you guys what I mean. 

[crownsy]

(5) Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm. - this is addressing hand to waist, etc - but is applicable to our discussion.

e. Contact which occurs on the hand of the offensive player, while that hand is in contact with the ball, is legal.

I agree with a hand touch.  I thought we were talking about a hit across the arm?

come on now, don't try to change what you were saying now to try to explain it away. You disagreed with him that ANY contact post shot is a foul.

I'm sorry racker, he's right. If it doesn't affect the shooters follow through and the shot has been blocked, its not a foul.

thats why your examples of intentianl hard whacks to the arm, nut shots, whacks across the face, and other crazy stuff made no sense in context, those are all clearly detrmental to the shooter and intentional.

your wrong on this issue racker, if your not post the rule you think you know inside and out.

Crownsy, be fair.  He's talking about incidental contact on loose balls and I'm talking about the definition of "act of shooting".  Give me a minute in the rule book and I'll show you guys what I mean. 

do you not see the part in the rule he qouted that says

or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements

your cherrypicking the rule. your wrong man, give it up.

[markketch]

UGh im going to have to TP a cavs fan....I feel dirty  

man, were going to have two rational cavs fans who are good for a basketball discussion now between you and MACOH 

and racker, its no big deal your wrong on this one issue man, im wrong all the time 

Haha, well I always look for good, honest discussion. I'll be the first to admit being incorrect, biased, etc. I'd rather engage in meaningful discussion and debate than namecalling and bickering, ya know?

[RAcker]

Sorry for the delay guys, but this discussion includes two rules: 1)Definition of the Act of Shooting in Rule 4 of the Rule Book and 2) The Definition of Legal Guarding Position in the "Contact Situation" section quoted from earlier about loose balls and incidental contact.

Section XI-Field Goal Attempt:
A field goal attempt is a player's attempt to shoot the ball into his basket for a field goal. The act of shooting starts when, in the official's judgment, the player has started his shooting motion and continues until the shooting motion ceases and he returns to a normal floor position. It is not essential that the ball leave the shooter's hand. His arm(s) might be held so that he cannot actually make an attempt. 

Notice that "it is not essential that the ball leave the shooter's hand" but that this  rule is obviously intended to include the portions of a shot before and after release.

"Contact Situation" # 2 Paragraph 4 - A player who extends a hand, forearm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent and thereby causes contact is not considered to have a legal position in the path of an opponent.

Thus, if the defender goes straight up and the offensive player makes the contact during follow through, it's allowable. The defender, however, is not allowed to make contact of a legally positioned shooter by extending the arm, etc. until the shooting act is over as defined above.

This does not mean that incidental contact is by rule allowable during a shot.  We all know some is allowed, but what was quoted earlier about incidental contact during lose balls does not apply since the contact was made while the offensive player was still in the act of shooting.  If the shot was blocked and the offensive man had returned to normal floor position and his shooting motion was over, incidental contact is allowed OR if contact is made only on his hand and nothing else while the hand WAS STILL ATTACHED to the ball.

Hope this clears up what I'm saying.  I have no problem with you arguing the point of the hand being a part of the ball.  I agree. What you said was that a slap of the hand or arm was legal after the release, and while the NBA refs and others may not call it consistently, the rule book clearly says that this is still contact during the act of shooting. 

I love you guys.
 

[crownsy]

Sorry for the delay guys, but this discussion includes two rules: 1)Definition of the Act of Shooting in Rule 4 of the Rule Book and 2) The Definition of Legal Guarding Position in the "Contact Situation" section quoted from earlier about loose balls and incidental contact.

Section XI-Field Goal Attempt:
A field goal attempt is a player's attempt to shoot the ball into his basket for a field goal. The act of shooting starts when, in the official's judgment, the player has started his shooting motion and continues until the shooting motion ceases and he returns to a normal floor position. It is not essential that the ball leave the shooter's hand. His arm(s) might be held so that he cannot actually make an attempt. 

Notice that "it is not essential that the ball leave the shooter's hand" but that this  rule is obviously intended to include the portions of a shot before and after release.

"Contact Situation" # 2 Paragraph 4 - A player who extends a hand, forearm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent and thereby causes contact is not considered to have a legal position in the path of an opponent.

Thus, if the defender goes straight up and the offensive player makes the contact during follow through, it's allowable. The defender, however, is not allowed to make contact of a legally positioned shooter by extending the arm, etc. until the shooting act is over as defined above.

This does not mean that incidental contact is by rule allowable during a shot.  We all know some is allowed, but what was quoted earlier about incidental contact during lose balls does not apply since the contact was made while the offensive player was still in the act of shooting.  If the shot was blocked and the offensive man had returned to normal floor position and his shooting motion was over, incidental contact is allowed OR if contact is made only on his hand and nothing else while the hand WAS STILL ATTACHED to the ball.

Hope this clears up what I'm saying.  I have no problem with you arguing the point of the hand being a part of the ball.  I agree. What you said was that a slap of the hand or arm was legal after the release, and while the NBA refs and others may not call it consistently, the rule book clearly says that this is still contact during the act of shooting. 

I love you guys.
 

right, i understand that, but all that says is what we've been saying. if you interfer with a players follow through in an apreciable way, its a foul. Thats why the rule mark linked was put in;

The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm

to clarify the rule you posted.

mabey the problem here is that its lebron, i know that can be a polorizing issue around here. lets make this MPA (mythical player A) and MPB.


MPA is taking a midrange jumper. MPB jumps out to block it. He blocks the ball, but his follow through makes his hand shove MPA offbalance, inpeeding his follow through and landing.

Under both rules, thats a foul.

scenario two, and the one we were arguing is not a foul.

MPA is taking the same shot. MPB jumps out and blocks the shot. As part of his follow through post block, he brushes MPA, but does not, in the refferes mind, alter the followthrough in any way, nor the landing. That is NOT a foul.

Now, again, i saw this play once at full speed. Prehaps it was a foul, prehaps not, i would need to see a video of it. the fact remains, incidental contact with a shooter post block is not automaticaly a foul, just because you touched someone. Thats what me and mark were debating.


TP 4 doing your research though, and again, its not that contact post block isn't a foul, its just that it isn't automaticaly a foul. the ref has discretion built into the rule book.


now, im not sure we have the best judges calling the action on the other hand, but thats a debate about the quality of officating in the NBA rather than the rules.

[RAcker]

"The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm."

This is not the correct rule to look at.  In context, this paragraph is referring only to defensive vertical position when in the post and pressing.  Please read the entire section and give me a TP.  I seriously looked at this and it has nothing to do with "The Act of Shooting". 

We have to understand what rules apply in a particular situation, and LEGALLY by the book, contact during the defined act of shooting is not allowed, period, even though we know they let it slide. 

I'm like a judge trying to follow the rule of law and you guys are using bits of rules to apply to how you know it actually is called. I'm not saying LeBron should have been called for that in that situation, but that if we followed the rules as written, traveling would be called off the charts too.

This is letter of the law vs. application.  I agree with you that the contact was probably no big deal but that it was in fact illegal by the rule book. Sorry.

[crownsy]

"The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm."

This is not the correct rule to look at.  In context, this paragraph is referring only to defensive vertical position when in the post and pressing.  Please read the entire section and give me a TP.  I seriously looked at this and it has nothing to do with "The Act of Shooting". 

We have to understand what rules apply in a particular situation, and LEGALLY by the book, contact during the defined act of shooting is not allowed, period, even though we know they let it slide. 

I'm like a judge trying to follow the rule of law and you guys are using bits of rules to apply to how you know it actually is called. I'm not saying LeBron should have been called for that in that situation, but that if we followed the rules as written, traveling would be called off the charts too.

This is letter of the law vs. application.  I agree with you that the contact was probably no big deal but that it was in fact illegal by the rule book. Sorry.

I gave you a TP, and i did read it. I was aware of the above rule, and i was also aware of the incdntal contact rule.  i knew you would both find the two rules you found, because i've had this discussion on other boards before (and this one), and seen a snipit about whats a foul on a jumpshooter on NBATV.

 show me where it says that contact isn't allowed? it even goes out of its way to say incidental contact is allowed as long as it doesn't inpeed the shot (in the rule as "speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm"  and is part of a normal defensive motion. the rule is built to allow refs the ablity to not call 75 fouls a game.

 if we went STRICLY by your interpatation rule, every layup that a defender gets any piece of a scorer on (liek when you body up a guy to force him to go right or left) is a foul, since your impedeing a players follow through. 

[RAcker]

"The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm."

This is not the correct rule to look at.  In context, this paragraph is referring only to defensive vertical position when in the post and pressing.  Please read the entire section and give me a TP.  I seriously looked at this and it has nothing to do with "The Act of Shooting". 

We have to understand what rules apply in a particular situation, and LEGALLY by the book, contact during the defined act of shooting is not allowed, period, even though we know they let it slide. 

I'm like a judge trying to follow the rule of law and you guys are using bits of rules to apply to how you know it actually is called. I'm not saying LeBron should have been called for that in that situation, but that if we followed the rules as written, traveling would be called off the charts too.

This is letter of the law vs. application.  I agree with you that the contact was probably no big deal but that it was in fact illegal by the rule book. Sorry.

I gave you a TP, and i did read it. I was aware of the above rule, and i was also aware of the incdntal contact rule.  i knew you would both find the two rules you found, because i've had this discussion on other boards before (and this one), and seen a snipit about whats a foul on a jumpshooter on NBATV.

 show me where it says that contact isn't allowed? it even goes out of its way to say incidental contact is allowed as long as it doesn't inpeed the shot. the rule is built to allow refs the ablity to not call 75 fouls a game. if we went STRICLY by your rule, every layup that a defender gets any piece of a scorer on (liek when you body up a guy) is a foul. 

"Contact Situation" # 2 Paragraph 4 - A player who extends a hand, forearm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent and thereby causes contact is not considered to have a legal position in the path of an opponent.

This includes the path of the opponent going up and coming down from a vertical shot attempt.  The shooting definition defines the offensive player's right to take a legal shot and what constitutes the entirity of the shot.

The above "Contact Situtation" shows in what positions a defender is not allowed to make contact to impede what the offensive player is doing (i.e. shooting the ball).  If not in a legal guarding position or going straight up with arms in your own vertical plain, if you make illegal contact with the shooter during the legally defined shot, it's technically a foul.  However, I do not condone calling touch fouls.  I'm only pointing out the definition.

[RAcker]

"If we went STRICLY by your interpatation rule, every layup that a defender gets any piece of a scorer on (liek when you body up a guy to force him to go right or left) is a foul, since your impedeing a players follow through. - Crownsy"

And this should not be done.  I agree with you. I'm only arguing the letter of the law. 

[crownsy]

Contact Situation" # 2 Paragraph 4 - A player who extends a hand, forearm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent and thereby causes contact is not considered to have a legal position in the path of an opponent.

i get this. you dont need to keep posting it. thats why if you inpeed a players shot, even by accedent as part of your follow through after a block, its a foul. The reason they put the other rule in, which directly says.

The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm."

is so that refs don't have to call fouls when a player gets breathed on, and have the power of discrestion. If you go look in the NFL rulebook, any contact that inpeeds a WR's path to the ball is pass interferance, yet 2 paragraphs later, it also mentions how incedntal contact (i.e Getting your feet tangled together) does not automaticaly constitiue pass interferance.

Trust me man, i've watched a NBA ref talk to an NBA.com reporter explaining that they don't HAVE to call everytime a players is bumped on a drive or jumpshot because of the incdental contact rule. It gives them the ability to apply thier common sense.

Now, since i dont think the current officating core has much of that, i'm not always on board with thier judgment on this front, but they do have the ablity by the book.

And this should not be done.  I agree with you. I'm only arguing the letter of the law.

no, your not, because your completly and incorectly disregarding another "letter of the law" because it doesn't agree with you.

[RAcker]

Contact Situation" # 2 Paragraph 4 - A player who extends a hand, forearm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent and thereby causes contact is not considered to have a legal position in the path of an opponent.

i get this. you dont need to keep posting it. thats why if you inpeed a players shot, even by accedent as part of your follow through after a block, its a foul. The reason they put the other rule in, which directly says.

The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm."

is so that refs don't have to call fouls when a player gets breathed on, and have the power of discrestion. If you go look in the NFL rulebook, and contact that inpeeds a WR's path to the ball is pass interferance, yet 2 paragraphs later, it also mentions how incedntal contact (i.e Getting your feet tangled together) does not automaticaly constitiue pass interferance.

Trust me man, i've watched a NBA ref talk to an NBA.com reporter explaining that they don't HAVE to call everytime a players is bumped on a drive or jumpshot because of the incdental contact rule. It gives them the ability to apply thier common sense.

Now, since i dont think the current officating core has much of that, i'm not always on board with thier judgment on this front, but they do have the ablity by the book.

Your argument makes sense and it's always best to leave some discretion to the officials (even in the NBA).  I respect you for having this back and forth and I can't understand why the Cavs guy bailed out.  I don't think he was getting the fact that I wasn't calling for a strict by the rule officiating of the game, but that I was merely saying what is "technically" a foul at all levels of basketball.  Truce.

[markketch]

Didn't bail out - I was in the conference room eating lunch with coworkers.

As already brought up, the quoted rule below is the part of the rule book that permits incidental contact.  Think of it as an addendum to the rule you're trying to apply. It's essentially saying "the rule may say "XX" but we allow for "YY" as well."

The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm."

Also, this does not apply only to a "loose" ball like you mentioned above.  The rule goes on to say "or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements". This right here is explicitly stating that incidental contact is permissable on block attempts, etc.

[RAcker]

Didn't bail out - I was in the conference room eating lunch with coworkers.

As already brought up, the quoted rule below is the part of the rule book that permits incidental contact.  Think of it as an addendum to the rule you're trying to apply. It's essentially saying "the rule may say "XX" but we allow for "YY" as well."

The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm."

Also, this does not apply only to a "loose" ball like you mentioned above.  The rule goes on to say "or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements". This right here is explicitly stating that incidental contact is permissable on block attempts, etc.

Mark, I appreciate the back and forth on this.  Shows why officiating is so difficult.  I agree that not all contact can be called or the games would be unwatchable.  In fact, this particular play I have no problem with due to the time of game and situation.

Although I don't agree with the addendum part of what you said, I do see where the language about normal movements leaves the door open for you to think that.  I just read the entire section and feel like within it's entire context it does not mean what you think it does. 

We'll just do the Bill O'reilly and agree to disagree.  Thanks for the debate though.