PC Foul called - Lowering the shoulder or not LGP (Video)

JRutledge

Peace

crosscountry55

Meh. I don’t love the call. Don’t hate it but don’t love it, either. Didn’t look like the ball handler initiated the contact and it didn’t look like he warded off, either. I’d prefer a call on the defender here. Not the easiest call to make in crowded transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Camron Rust

crosscountry55 wrote
Didn’t look like the ball handler initiated the contact and it didn’t look like he warded off, either. I’d prefer a call on the defender here.

Who initiated contact is really not relevant. They collided and (usually) one or the other illegal in doing so. The right question is did the defender have LGP or not. The offense can "initiate contact" all day and still get a foul on a defender if the defender doesn't have LGP. If that were not the case, 99% of fast breaks with defenders trying to get back would be charges.

crosscountry55

Camron Rust wrote
Who initiated contact is really not relevant. They collided and (usually) one or the other illegal in doing so. The right question is did the defender have LGP or not. The offense can "initiate contact" all day and still get a foul on a defender if the defender doesn't have LGP. If that were not the case, 99% of fast breaks with defenders trying to get back would be charges.

Fair point but do you have an opinion on this play? The title inferred a lowering of the shoulder (which implies a charge and responsibility on the offense regardless of LGP), or a case of LGP being established. I didn’t see either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rich

I don't think the defender is ever legal. Not a fan of the call.

thedewed

no call. lgp is iffy at best, and d was closing on o at an angle, but offense initiated. a better no call in my book.

crosscountry55

thedewed wrote
no call. lgp is iffy at best, and d was closing on o at an angle, but offense initiated. a better no call in my book.

I’m okay with that logic if the defender doesn’t tumble to the floor the way he did here. But with that tumble, the only way I’m no-calling is if the tumble was an obvious flop. Otherwise my instinct says there has to be a whistle on this play. Like an old clinician once said, “If players end up on the floor, know how they got there.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Camron Rust

crosscountry55 wrote
Fair point but do you have an opinion on this play? The title inferred a lowering of the shoulder (which implies a charge and responsibility on the offense regardless of LGP), or a case of LGP being established. I didn’t see either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've yet to see "lowering the shoulder" as a reason for a foul in any rulebook. Every person who is running has lowered his/her shoulder to some degree. They'd fall backwards if not....try to run fast without leaning forward.

I don't have the defender in LGP...block.

JRutledge

Camron Rust wrote
I've yet to see "lowering the shoulder" as a reason for a foul in any rulebook. Every person who is running has lowered his/her shoulder to some degree. They'd fall backwards if not....try to run fast without leaning forward.

I don't have the defender in LGP...block.

I have yet to see anything that suggests a defender like this is not in LGP. He is doing all the things required and gets run into. PC foul all day and twice on Sunday.

Peace

Kelvin green

I’m with JRut... what did the defender do wrong? In many plays we assume that the defender is wrong but why? What we need to do is officiate from the presumption that defenders play legally. ( we officiate the defense) ... we should never penalize good defense but it happens all too often....in this play the defender has done nothing wrong and gets displaced.

I like this call and think it is exactly what needed to be called...

ilyazhito

Correct call. This is not football, where an offensive player can legally stiff-arm or drive a shoulder into a defender to put him on the ground. By the same token, lack of LGP does not give the offensive player license to initiate illegal contact and get away with it scot-free. This is why there is an exception to the restricted area rule for when an offensive player uses an unnatural motion to illegally contact a defender (using a shoulder, forearm, or knee to create separation or knock the defender down). I would apply the same thinking anywhere else on the court, and call the player control foul on blue here.

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
PC Foul called - Lowering the shoulder or not LGP

crosscountry55 wrote
The title inferred a lowering of the shoulder (which implies a charge and responsibility on the offense regardless of LGP),

Camron Rust wrote
I've yet to see "lowering the shoulder" as a reason for a foul in any rulebook. Every person who is running has lowered his/her shoulder to some degree.

Over many years, why have we seen many, many references to "lowering the shoulder" here on the Forum in reference to player control charging fouls?

Did I miss something when I first learned high school rules?

I remember talking about legal guarding position, feet, verticality, movement, airborne players, torsos, ducking, etc., but I don't remember discussing lowering shoulders (other than getting head and shoulders past the defender).

Was I absent that day?

Was it "Senior Skip Day"?

crosscountry55

BillyMac wrote
Over many years, why have we seen many, many references to "lowering the shoulder" here on the Forum in reference to player control charging fouls?

Did I miss something when I first learned high school rules?

Was I absent that day?

Was it "Senior Skip Day"?

I’m with you Billy but that’s why I said lowering the shoulder (in the context of the OP) implies a charge. I never said it guarantees it, for as you correctly state there is no specific rules coverage for lowering of the shoulder.

Looks like as a forum we’re professionally split on who had greater responsibility for the contact and whether LGP requirements were met. It was a close play, so I guess that’s ok.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BillyMac

crosscountry55 wrote
... there is no specific rules coverage for lowering of the shoulder.

Could it be some colloquial rule of thumb to help officials make a correct block/charge call?

If so, can it be shared with the rest of us, I've never heard about it in my high school games here in my little corner of Connecticut?

Rich

thedewed wrote
no call. lgp is iffy at best, and d was closing on o at an angle, but offense initiated. a better no call in my book.

Who initiates contact is not important if B doesn't have LGP.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

bucky

Should have been a no call.

JRutledge

Play #2: Another one

Peace

bob jenkins

PC on both. The second is easier.

bucky

Easy PC foul in second video.

Camron Rust

JRutledge wrote
I have yet to see anything that suggests a defender like this is not in LGP. He is doing all the things required and gets run into. PC foul all day and twice on Sunday.

Peace

Kelvin green wrote
I’m with JRut... what did the defender do wrong? In many plays we assume that the defender is wrong but why? What we need to do is officiate from the presumption that defenders play legally. ( we officiate the defense) ... we should never penalize good defense but it happens all too often....in this play the defender has done nothing wrong and gets displaced.

I like this call and think it is exactly what needed to be called...

I have the dribbler getting head/shoulders past the defender based on the direction the dribbler was moving and the defender lost LGP and need to get back in the path facing the opponent to reestablish it. Instead the defender was running beside the dribbler and never got back to LGP.