Foul or no foul?

[Crusty]

I agree with your "agree to disagree" mentality--that's what makes this board awesome. I respect you for your attitude on that.

That said, the explanation is not accurate. Much like block/charge calls, players can be moving in the Rule of Verticality and still establish defensive position. People often mistake the idea that a player has to be in a fixed position to draw an offensive foul, but that is not the case. The same is true here (though there would be no offensive foul here).

A player can establish position for blocking a basketball without having to be in a fixed standing position directly facing a player before going into the air. If not, 80%+ of blocks in basketball would end up a defensive foul. The question is really about who initiates contact within "the phone booth" of space.

If a referee cannot clearly establish this, he can't call a foul in this spot.

I respect if your eyes tell you it was Christmas that initiated that contact. My eyes tell me it was Hood's momentum carrying toward the basket that did.

Cheers to you for the discussion, though.

That's how I saw it. The ball was blocked and Hood's momentum created the contact. However, I don't believe that Christmas was entitled to any verticality. He never established position - not even close. What I do think is important is that the shot was altered by the block and the secondary contact was incidental. That is why I think it was a good no call if that makes sense.

 

[Knicks411]

The Hood-Rak play looked really close to me (not from section 333, but when I saw the replay) I think I'm ok with the no call there; just wonder what the thoughts would be if the jerseys were switched

 

[Coach Orange]

That's how I saw it. The ball was blocked and Hood's momentum created the contact. However, I don't believe that Christmas was entitled to any verticality. He never established position - not even close. What I do think is important is that the shot was altered by the block and the secondary contact was incidental. That is why I think it was a good no call if that makes sense.

To be truthful, I have changed my mind on the play. When I wrote my original post, I was going off of my memory of the play as it happened last night and the pictures of it. Since then, I have watched the play several times, and I agree that the Rule of Verticality doesn't apply as Christmas did not clearly establish defensive position (as both you and Cowtown have stated).

The key to any good discussion is the willingness to listen (or read) open-mindedly and to reconsider positions when new evidence is presented. That's what I am doing here. That said, after viewing the play repeatedly, I also agree that, because the ball was clearly blocked prior to contact, the contact was then incidental. Therefore, it was still not a foul--at least not one so blatant that the official had no choice but to call it.

 

[Crusty]

OK so, no foul - we win now on to Monday and ND!
Go Cuse!

 

[orangefan13]

Dissagree with Rak having to establish position BIGTIME......
Ok, ask yourself this then!!! What if Hood put the ball behind his head, initiated body contact and then threw the ball up at a rediculus 30 foot heave with no chance of going in. Also consider Raks arms had the ball stuffed in every direction, yet he still didn't reach at the ball but kept them straight up. Rak had every ainverted layup attempt on that play covered because his hands were at the apex of the ball in every direction. I think that should play a huge part into every block call. Even more then contact when your hands are straight up and your not jumping into the player.

Also consider Rak wasn't dead set in the middle in a charge position and in a weakside shotblocking position instead, because he was extended to help guard the perimeter against a duke team that was 15/35 from 3????? That was what was best for Syracuse and weakside shotblocking will be in the future so carefull what you accept as a foul.


Its important to understand in basketball offense is opportunity where as defense is a legal right.
You have the right to try to protect your basket, thats what shotblock is. But, you don't have the right to cut off a route to the basket with a moving blocking foul. That is protecting a route to the basket not the rim. Thats why there is weakside shotblocking but not weakside charges.

It was clearly a risky play by Hood and he went for it. He didn't have to jump and attempt that play as he knew Rak was there. He could have took another dribble and tried to attack the weakside of the rim or passed it back out, instead he went for it challenging Rak and lost.


I also highly dissagree there wasn't contact before the block as well. I felt Clearly Hoods elbow was in front of the ball, raks hands and elbows were straight up, and solomon caused a bumped elbow because the ball was behind his elbow. However, as stated above Rak had the ball smothered in every inverted direction whether the elbow bump was a slight second before the block or not. Also, the way Raks arm was facing it was impossible for him to bend his arm forward. He blocked that with the back of his hand, and its physically impossible for him to bend his elbow that way.

 

[Coach Orange]

Dissagree with Rak having to establish position BIGTIME...

Ok, ask yourself this then!!! What if Solomon put the ball behind his head, initiated body contact and then threw the ball up at a rediculus 30 foot heave with no chance of going in. Also consider Raks arms had the ball stuffed in every direction, yet he still didn't reach at the ball but kept them straight up. Rak had every ainverted layup attempt on that play covered because his hands were at the apex of the ball in every direction. I think that should play a huge part into every block call.

Also consider Rak wasn't dead set in the middle in a charge position and in a weakside shotblocking position instead, because he was extended to help guard the perimeter against a duke team that was 15/35 from 3????? That was what was best for Syracuse and will be in the future so carefull what you accept as a foul.


Its important to understand in basketball offense is opportunity where as defense is a legal right.
You have the right to try to protect your basket, thats what shotblock is. But, you don't have the right to cut off a route to the basket with a moving blocking foul. That is protecting a route the basket not the rim. Thats why there is weakside shotblocking but not weakside charges.

It was clearly a risky play by Solomon and he went for it. He didn't have to jump and attempt that play as he knew Rak was there. He could have took another dribble and tried to attack the weakside of the rim or passed it back out, instead he went for it challenging Rak and lost.

Weakside shotblocking with a extended zone is important to Syracuse Defense make no mistake about it, and it will lead to some minor contact on shotblocks.

I think there is a difference between being able to block a ball from a position that is not the on-ball defender and establishing position in terms of the Rule of Verticality. Roc's block is still a good block. However, I'm not sure that defending why the action isn't a foul using the Rule of Verticality works in this case.

The key to the Rule of Verticality is that the defender must establish a legal guarding position prior to the start of the shot, and then must maintain that movement thereafter. He must keep his body in this position (including his arms and hands), occupying the space in his vertical plane, even when leaving his feet. As I watch the play, I don't see Roc do that. Roc runs into the play at the last second, never establishing a legal guarding position as defined in the rules.

However, your point is correct--he has the right to protect the rim, even without establishing that legal guarding position first. This is how most weak-side blocks occur, with no need to establish the legal guarding position. Roc blocks the ball cleanly, and Hood's arm hits Roc's as its momentum carries it forward. That is incidental contact at that point, because the ball has already been diverted. No advantage is gained by the defender as a result of the contact--hence, no foul.

If I was a Duke fan, the one argument I may have is that Roc swings his arm down on the play, which is often an automatic cause of a whistle on the defense (because it breaks verticality). However, again, without definitive evidence, it would appear the refs chose to let them play on in that spot.

 

[orangefan13]

It wasn't just a weakside block it was also a recovery block. With the zone extended we get alot of those I remember some wes Johnsons being the most obvious ones.

 

[Crusty]

Lot of different things in your post. What the offensive player could have or should have done might be an interesting thread but, of course, it has nothing to do with the actual call.

The call was not a question of charge or block as neither occurred. The issue was one of contact while shooting - a different foul/no foul call altogether. If the contact was incidental there was no foul and I believe that was the case here.

Offense and defense don't have rights - they have space that belongs to them and routes while moving that cannot be blocked improperly. The issue of verticality is a function of the defensive players right to his own space extending from his feet straight up his body to the sky. If his arms are fully extended straight up they are in his space.

To legally own that space under the current rule the defensive player is not permitted to move into the path of an offensive player once he has started his upward motion with the ball to attempt a field goal or pass. If the defensive player is not in legal guarding position by that time, it is a blocking foul. Prior to this year's rule change, a defender had to be in legal guarding position when the offensive player lifted off the floor. That is the rule.

 

[Coach Orange]

It wasn't just a weakside block it was also a recovery block. With the zone extended we get alot of those I remember some wes Johnsons being the most obvious ones.

No one's denying it was a good recovery by Roc. It demonstrates not only his athleticism, but also his development in terms of understanding his defensive responsibilities.