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

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rbruno]

Well I understand the not having LGP theory. But if the defense is running along side someone not in LGP and the offensive player wards off or makes contact with his arm/hand etc. I have a PCF which is what it looked like in this video.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rbruno

Well I understand the not having LGP theory. But if the defense is running along side someone not in LGP and the offensive player wards off or makes contact with his arm/hand etc. I have a PCF which is what it looked like in this video.

The arm only came out after the initial contact with shoulder to torso. It was already a defensive foul before the arm came out. The arm subsequently being extended doesn't change it to a PCF.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The arm only came out after the initial contact with shoulder to torso. It was already a defensive foul before the arm came out. The arm subsequently being extended doesn't change it to a PCF.

Yeah, to those that just call a block automatically. This level honestly wants more charges called and if it is a coin flip, I am calling a charge. I think it is a charge anyway because the defender had LGP and took the contact in the chest. I honestly cannot even believe this is a debate.

Peace

[rbruno]

Well I can see lots of occasions when the defense is along side (not in LGP ) and the offense wards off, pushes off the defender and I have a PC foul. Offense could even bump a defender who is behind him/her and not touching creating contact and getting a PCF.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

If we agree that the defender lost LGP, can't this still be a foul on the offense? Rule 4-23-1 states "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent". I interpret that to mean that LGP is required to obtain a charge call. But not all PC fouls are charges.

If A1 grabs a rebound and goes full speed the length of the court, with B1 alongside him, but having never obtained LGP, and A1, frustrated with B1's close proximity, shoves him, that is a PC foul on A1, correct?