LGP Under the Basket?
 

I'm not aware that there's any restriction from obtaining LGP under the basket, is there? If defender B-1 is under the basket and A-1 releases a shot and subsequently charges into B-1, that's still a PC foul, right? NBA's a different story, but NFHS there's no difference. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No correction to be made.

What about for NCAA?

I keep hearing commentators (I know, I know :rolleyes:) comment on how there was no foul called because the defender was underneath the basket.

In OP, it says he released the shot and then charged. Does the basket count?

Not under Fed rules.

If the shooter is still airborne when he charges into the defender, then it's a player control foul, wipe the basket.

If the shooter has landed before he charges into the defender, then at most it's a common foul, count the basket and possibly shoot bonus. More likely however, the ball has already passed through the basket and is dead, unless the foul is deemed intentional or flagrant, it is ignored.

In CCA-men, if the ball is released and player has not come back to the floor before the crash, the basket does count!

Same as FED on taking a charge while under the basket. (NCAAW used to be different -- it was not LGP -- until a couple of years ago.)

Note that the NBA rule isn't as simple as "can't take a charge while in the dotted semi-circle."

There is a school of thought among some officials (and assignors?) that a defender directly under the basket cannot "play defense", and they are only there to draw the charge, therefore the officials will not penalize the offense for the contact. This was even spelled out in the NCAA-W rules, where if the defender was under the basket, and the offense was driving down the lane ("north-south"), then it was either a no-call on contact, or the defender was responsible for the contact, even if they were stationary. However, that same defender, in that same spot, could draw a charge if the drive intiated along the endline ("east-west"). The reason was given as above; on a north-south drive the offense almost always shoots, so the defender is just there to draw a foul. But on an "east-west" drive, the offense may also pass, so the defender is assumed to be playing defense against the pass as well as being in the path of the offense.

All this changed last season, and the rule in NCAA-W was replaced with language to the effect of "LGP can occur anywhere on the floor". So that defender under the basket can now draw a charge, no matter where they are standing and no matter where the offense started their path. I like this philosophy better, in that it takes away a level of judgement (was the defender far enough under the basket so that LGP doesn't matter?), and it takes away that possible "free shot" an offensive player might have on a defender who is occupying a legal spot on the floor.

Here's the NFHS ruling
 

NCAA - Men No airborne shooter

FED - NCAA-Women Airborne Shooter exisits so this tends to be more common call however last year NCAAW specificall edited the rule book to remove the codicile that a player under the basket could only be charged with a blocking foul in such a situation.

This is a myth propagated by the NFHS and NCAA themselves, in the chart of differences between the two rulesets. There is an airborne shooter rule in NCAAM -- Rule 4-1, the very first definition.

The difference is that a common foul committed by an airborne shooter is not a player control foul under NCAAM rules.

So...is the end result any different then from the myth?

much better description.

Well, if there was no airborne shooter, then B1 could foul A1 after the shot is released, and before A1 lands, and it would have to be considered a common foul, not a shooting foul. But, because A1 is still an airborne shooter, they would still shoot FT(s).

Do I have that right, Scrappy?

Seems right to me.

What if the foul was "on the floor?" :D

Then charge the floor with the foul, and move on with the game.

You kill me, Snaqs.

You gonna call that on the floor? It wasn't moving (except for Padgett's cruise ship, which wasn't involved with this play).

Go ahead and make that call. It's your funeral.

Hey, part of the floor is OOB, so since it doesn't have legal position, it can be stationary and still get called for the foul.

Or so I'm told.

Oh boy, here we go....

Uh-oh.

I disagree - since part of the floor is OOB - it's just a violation occurring prior to any foul

<font size=1>(Shhh...don't tell anyone - we're accidentally having fun.)</font size>

Ah, but it is only a violation if the floor is OOB for an unauthorized reason. Isn't the floor allowed to be OOB? After all, a player would not have any support on a throw-in otherwise.

I still say as long as it's not moving, it can't be called for a foul.

As long as the reason is authorized, and I think "by design" is an authorized reason, it can't be called for a violation.

Normally I would agree with you, but there were some that were pretty adamant about this position.

Now, perhaps in CA with their numerous earthquakes, this isn't really an issue?

Agreed.

Something wrong with the building code?

If you can't be an athlete, at least be an athletic supporter. ;)

The floor must extend at least 2 inches OOB on all four sides, otherwise you'd have no OOB lines. And with no OOB lines, what would we have to argue about? :eek: