LGP Under the Basket?

[rfp]

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.

[bob jenkins]

No correction to be made.

[fiasco]

What about for NCAA?

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

[Coach Bill]

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

[Grail]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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

Not under Fed rules.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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

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.

[jritchie]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

What about for NCAA?

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

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."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fiasco

What about for NCAA?

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

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.

[Nevadaref]

10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact occurs, the player-control foul cancels the goal. However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. B1's foul on the airborne shooter is a foul during the act of shooting. If the shot is successful, one free throw is awarded and if it is unsuccessful, two free throws result. (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by jritchie

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

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

NCAA - Men No airborne shooter

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

much better description.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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

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?