Here is the problem, the "airborne shooter" was not running into a defender which was in a LGP. So to suggest this is what to call you would at least have a defender in a favorable position. That part of the rule did not magically go away with the airborne shooter rule. And the contact was not enough to constitute a foul if you ask me. The only thing that would even be considered was the purposeful action to land on a opponent. I am sorry but the claim that that is somehow a personal interpretation is laughable.

Peace

You got no arguments from me...

You are not going to defeat him with logic.

By definition, however, an unsporting foul is a NON-CONTACT foul (4-19-14). So whether we like it or not, the rest of your citation is irrelevant.

I'm not breaking any new ground in this thread, but the situation under discussion involves CONTACT, during a DEAD BALL (6-7-1), by an AIRBORNE SHOOTER (4-1-1). By rule -- again, whether you like it or not -- this is a personal foul (4-19-1).

If you would "rather take the hit" for calling a T, I can actually understand that. But by rule, this is a personal foul.

Then explain 10.3.7?

Peace

In 10.3.7, A1 has already returned to the ground and so is no longer an airborne shooter.

That's really the crux of the entire thread. Do you think that the intentional contact during a dead ball is ALWAYS a technical foul? Or do you believe that the airborne shooter exception in 4-19-1 also applies to dead ball periods?

I don't see any reason to say that 4-19-1 only applies to live balls. It certainly doesn't say that in the rules. We just normally think of it that way. Just because this play doesn't fit into how we "normally" call contact on or by an airborne shooter, doesn't mean the rule stops applying in those non-normal situations. JMHO.

Not that logic, anyway.

Let me ask you, scrapper:
Live ball (let's say it's transition time) situation, A1 and B1 get fed up with each other and square off with some chest bumps.

What's your call?

I agree with you that this play is a little different than what we have been talking about. But I am still trying to figure out how you automatically go to the PC foul on an airborne shooter with a defender that was never in a legal position. The defender even went towards the shooter and did not give him a place to land. So if that rule is not going to be invoked then why are we ignoring the responsibility of the defender? Keep in mind I am not saying we should call a foul on anyone for this play based on the actions of either player based on LGP or airborne shooter rules. But it sounds like we have ignored what the defender must do before the shooter leaves the floor.

Peace

The reason you can't figure it out is that I'm not going to the PC foul. :) A PC foul is a common foul, and this situation clearly is not a common foul. So it seems to me that guarding position isn't a factor in deciding how to call this play.

It's essentially the same play as if A1 dunks the ball and then punches B1 on the way back to the floor. Certainly not a PC, definitely doesn't depend on LGP. It's contact by the airborne shooter after the ball is dead. Is it a flagrant personal or a flagrant technical? By rule, it's flagrant personal. Same as in the video, again IMHO.

Double foul :)

Seriously, if it's "a" chest bump while they're mostly jawing, I'm going with double T's. But if they are pushing and shoving, it's no different than a double foul in the post, is it? They are personal fouls. You can call them intentional if you want, but that part is irrelevant to the penalty administration.

You know they say ... Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!!!

JK JK!! :)

Yes, but contact during a dead ball is either incidental or technical / flagrant technical.

There are two issues at here ... and I have to say that I am in the camp that states that a player who has completed a dunk and is still hanging on the rim on his way down does not really meet the spirit of the rule of "airborne player".

UNLESS the contact is on or by an airborne shooter, which is the entire debate on this play.

Why in the world not?? What other reason is there for making an exception for an airborne shooter if it doesn't cover this situation? The ONLY way I can think of for an airborne shooter to commit a foul after the ball is dead is to do it after a dunk. Nobody's hang time is good enough to stay airborne until after a 15-foot jump shot goes through the basket.

So should we submit a rule change so that 4-1-1 reads that an airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try and has not yet returned to the floor, but who has not grasped the ring? (That opens up a whole other can of worms for this play, btw.)

As I said previously, I can actually understand why we'd want this to be a dead ball contact technical foul. It is the "expected" call. It's like calling one foul instead of a multiple foul. You could be technically right in calling a multiple foul, but nobody does; and it would be a major headache if you did. But at least in that case, you have rule support for calling one foul (after all, the player who gave the foul to did commit a foul). And to be completely honest, in the heat of the moment, I might actually forget that he's an airborne shooter because of the unusual circumstances.

But in the video play, you actually don't have rule support for a technical foul.

At the very least, you would need to go with an intentional personal.

I've still got a T, for either taunting or hanging.
Taunting: Brad gave us a pretty good reasoning.
Hanging: The book says a player may "grasp" to prevent injury. Rondo goes beyond that by purposefully altering his trajectory into an opponent. Not part of the spirit of the rule allowing him to prevent injury.

IMO, you do have rule support for a T.

That, and I would add normal dunks that don't involved a tarzan swing onto an opponent.

Absolutely, for the exact reasons you stated. I mis-spoke, so I apologize. What I should have said was that you don't have rule support to call a technical foul for the contact involved in landing on the defensive player.

However, Rondo would not have even contacted the defender had he not grabbed the rim and changed direction. I think that is the basis for Brad's argument. I don't think PC/Blocking fouls and they way there were written ever considered a player changing direction mid-air (with the aid of the rim). I can see Brad's point in that this is not the type of play intended to be a PC foul. The words of the book may not back up his argument, but the spirit of the rule sure does.

If an official call a T on this play, I don't think any evaluator at any level would, regardless of the officials reasoning, take issue with it.

His actions on this play are typical of someone flying at the basket and being contested. I have no problem with the way he grabbed the rim. I was only concerned that he tried to land on the guy with the guy in-between his legs. This seems to be more about what Brad is saying, not him hanging on the rim alone.

I agree totally here.

Peace

I think there is only one official on the entire continent who call this a foul by an airborne shooter.

And the young official that even mentioned this issue then realized that it was silly and backed off. But now our friend out west!!!!

Peace

And neither Nevada nor I is arguing that it should be a PC foul. All I am arguing is that if there is a foul on Rondo for the contact with the defender (I'm NOT talking about hanging on the rim -- I'm ONLY talking about sitting on the defender on the way down), it must -- BY RULE -- be a personal foul in some form. NOT a player control foul, as I've stated previously in my response to Brad. This is obviously not a block/charge situation, neither is it a common foul.

I think there are some people who have a couple different issues confused in this discussion. I am making one point only. Rondo is an airborne shooter, by definition. That is not arguable. He makes contact with a defender while the ball is dead. That is not arguable. BY RULE, this is a personal foul, 4-19-1.

I'm simply repeating myself now, but let me say again that I completely understand why people feel like this is a technical foul. It absolutely feels like a technical foul. I completely agree that 99.9% of all observers wouldn't even question an official who called it a technical foul. A technical foul is the expected call at all levels.

But. . .

By rule, the contact resulting from sitting on the defender's shoulders is a personal foul.

I do not know how many ways I can say this. People are not calling a T on Rondo because he made contact. He tried to land on him to taunt him. It would be the same if Rondo purposely put his "nuts" in his face and did not land on him. This was taunting, not an issue because someone landed on another player. If Rondo landed on him and did not do it on purpose, then I would argue that there was not foul. The contact is not why I would call the foul; it was the reason for the contact, which is why I would not go with a PC foul here at all.

Peace

If one wants to go 100 percent by the book, then this would be either an intentional or flagrant personal foul or a player control/blocking foul since this is technically an "airborne" shooter and thus the exception would apply. You'd be 100 percent "right" by rule, but still wrong IMO. You ask 100 officials what they'd call on this, and you'd get at least 95 of them saying if a call is to be made, it'd be a T. I bet if you ask that many assignors, they'd tell you that they'd want a T on this call rather than a personal foul.

Those that are going by the book on this particular play are calling it too purely IMO. If you're going to go by the book this strictly then, I'm assuming you'll be calling multiple/simultaneous fouls (instead of picking one or the other), calling 3 second violations when an offensive player has the back of his heel in the lane, and calling a leaving the court when a portion of a player's foot is out of bounds.

Now I'm pretty sure that almost none of y'all would do that because that would be calling by the book too purely and not the intent of these rules and it's my belief that applying the airborne exception is a case this also. Of course this is all IMO.

That's all I'm saying. That's all I've ever been saying.

I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with you. :)

And here is my only quibble. Why would this NOT be the intent of the rule? As I asked earlier, when else would an airborne shooter commit a foul AFTER the ball became dead? It can only happen after a dunk, because nobody has the hang time to stay airborne until after a 15-foot jumper goes through the basket. So it seems to me that this is precisely the intent of the rule -- to penalize a dunker who initiates contact with a defender, even after the ball has gone through the basket. The fact that the contact is delayed because he hung momentarily on the ring doesn't seem to change the essential elements of the play, IMHO.

I see your point here, and I honestly wasn't seeing it before. But I still am not sure I agree. I think taunting is usually non-contact -- wagging a finger, a verbal taunt -- something like that.

So I see your point, I think I disagree simply because the foul occurs precisely because there is contact. If he doesn't land on him, then there is no foul; no taunting, no sitting, whatever. So it seems to me that the contact is the essential part of the play.

It doesn't have to be a contact foul just because contact occurs.

What if he clearly tried to land on him but missed. Are you saying that there was no taunting and that there should be no foul of any kind?

What if a player tries to punch an opponent and misses? Is that not still a fight?

What if, during a live ball, a player tries to punch an opponent, misses, and then stumbles such that they fall onto the opponents foot? Contact foul or non-contact foul? The contact itself was not adequate for a foul of any kind, but wasn't the behavior that preceded it still a fight and T worthy?

Correct, but that is exactly why Rut is T'ing the player--FOR THE CONTACT. He has now resorted to word games in an effort to not have to admit his error.

This argument carries the day. It's perfect.
Of course, Rut would T the guy for punching the opponent. He would argue that he's penalizing the thought which entered the player's head just before he struck his opponent or some other such nonsense.

For the record, there is an argument to be made that the punch would be considered "fighting" and thus should be penalized as a flagrant T regardless of whether it's dead ball or live ball contact.

That was how I was instructed, after the fact, to call a particular fight in a game I worked several years ago in Iowa.

What error would that be? That I have said that I would give a T for taunting? That has been the claim the entire time. Please show a reference that I am giving a T for implying contact? There is plenty of evidence in this thread to show my comments. I think you are just alone in your position and want to have someone to blame. Because I noticed you have not taking on the positions of others in this thread that have called you out for being unreasonable or silly in your position. There have been plenty here that have referenced your position as "that guy" or "only one official" would call this. Maybe I am so powerful on this site that I can influence how others think about basic rules applications. :rolleyes:

Peace

Not just an argument, that is what the rule is.

Peace

Well, the rule book DOES say that a punch is a fight and that fighting is a flagrant T. Of course, it is contradicted by other elements that suggest that it is a personal foul if the ball is live. So, you have a choice of which one to follow....so he wouldn't be wrong in either case.

I can also find no rule or case that says that taunting must be free of contact.

You keep saying that you are giving a T for taunting, but what exactly constituted the taunting? Did the player say something to the opponent? Nope. Did he make a gesture towards him? Nope.
What he did was jump/land on him. He purposely made CONTACT with an opponent. This is no different than if he had run over and chest-bumped him, or as Scrapper wrote, punched him. The fact is that you are trying to characterize the action of contacting an opponent as taunting. As an unsporting technical foul BY RULE must be NONCONTACT, that is where you are in error.

As for the "that guy" stuff, that is simply you failing to have an intelligent argument, so you resort to a personal insult. How sad. :( I'm not going to stoop to such tactics. I'll just stick to discussing the rules.
PS By my count only one other person echoed that thought, so your "plenty here" statement is also incorrect.

Too bad that you were instructed such. That is incorrect. Fighting is a flagrant technical foul when done during a dead ball, but a flagrant personal when done during a live ball. See these two case plays.

In the first the ball is dead following the dunk. Then there is a noncontact unsporting T for the taunt, which becomes an act of fighting when the opponent retaliates with the punch.

FIGHTING

4.18.2 SITUATION:

In this second one, there is nothing to make the ball dead prior to the first illegal contact, so the fouls are personal.

8.7 SITUATION A:

RULING:

DEAD WRONG!!!

Try this one:

DEAD-BALL LIVE-BALL FOULS

4.19.14 SITUATION:

Was the "contact" sufficient for a foul all on its own....then I'd agree, have a personal foul. However, you didn't address my earlier point about the contact being incidental and in the presence of other actions warranting a call. The fact that there was contact doesn't make it a personal foul. Only if the contact WAS the foul.

I am from Missouri!!!!
 

I do not recall that 10-3-6c Note, says anything about gesturing is the only form of taunting. Now if you can find where that is the only kind of taunting that is approved, then show that to me. Is there a case play that accompanies that and gives such directive?

Can you show me any rule that eliminates any act that is considered a T that cannot involve contact at all other than fighting rules? I do not think you will find such interpretation or ruling from the NF in any literature that suggests that this cannot take place. So if a player dunks on an opponent and he makes contact by putting his nuts directly in the face of the opponent on purpose, you are suggesting that we can only call a PC foul because the player is still considered airborne? Again, find me that ruling and we can go there. You are good at showing 10 year old rulings, so that should be something you can come up with now. There has to be something that supports your “absolute” position here.

Actually it was someone else that quoted me about you being "that guy" and changed my words. I simply said that I do not want to be that guy that makes a ruling that almost no one supports. And I do not know of anyone that would take the position you are taking and making it so black and white where only taunting or T foul involves absolutely no contact. I have been doing this awhile and I am confident that no one I work for or with would have a problem with such ruling. And again you have only made this about me as just about everyone in this thread has suggest that this be a T is what they would call.

On the first page of this thread, I counted 9 people that either alluded to a T or said that they would T Rondo in this case. You came in on this conversation on comment #28 after everyone but one person claimed they would even call a T and that person admitting that they were young and reconsidered their position. And the person that responded right after you also said he would T the Rondo. Again if anyone has made this conversation personal it has been you. I have not seen you respond to anyone else and telling them they are wrong or tell those they need to know the rules or what they should do. I guess I am that powerful that I have that much influence on other grown people that have been officiating for some time to tell them what they should say about this play.

Peace

Not exactly correct. While there is a casebook play that agrees with you, the rule book has a contradiction on this point.

10-3-8 says, in very simple words, that fighting is a technical foul with no distinction on whether the ball is live or dead or whether there is contact or not.

10-3 Player Technical. Art. 8....Be charged with fighting.

4-18 defines fighting and further says that fighting occurs whether there is contact or not and can occur during a live ball or a dead ball.

It doesn't have to be free from contact, just that the contact is not the reason that the foul is being called.

All 9 of those came before I was pointed out he was still an airborne shooter, which changed the whole direction of this thread pretty significantly. Count the ones after page one and you will see Nevada has a pretty good following.

You act as if it were a fact that he was an airborne shooter. Once he converted the ring to a chin-up bar, that time was passed.

If you call the T for hanging on the rim- not if you call an unsporting T for the contact.

As several pointed out, that is the rub exactly. The airborne shooter exception was not intended for this play, but technically applies. That is why I think either an unsporting T or an intentional personal would be OK. The penalties are nearly the same (inbound spot differs, and the T would count against rondo, but in both cases white get two shots and the ball), so I think you could reasonably sell either one.

And that should tell you something. The fact that multiple people did not even consider your scenario when at first glance is telling to me. Actually I seriously doubt that if I showed this play at a camp that more than one person would make the same observation.

Again if the contact that took place even warranted a foul maybe that would be a good point or would technically apply. But that does not seem the case at all as no player was displace and even both players ended up on their feet (or one on the back of the other). It is hard to justify in my opinion a foul here other than an act that is unsporting by rule. And no one has been able to show that taunting is completely void of contact. Again it is not about the contact, it is about the fact Rondo tried to embarrass the opponent by getting on his shoulders. If he does not do that then there is nothing on this play, even hanging on the rim as he would be allowed to do that with someone under him.

Peace

Agreed. I said earlier that on the floor I would have called an unsporting T and would not have even noticed he was an airborne shooter.

But, once you do notice in a discussion about rules on an officiating forum, it does make a difference. And leads to ten pages of discussion...

Just because there are a certain number of pages does not mean that this discussion is completely relevant. If that was the case most of the things we talk about here no one would ever try to have an extended conversation about. And I certainly do not think there would be much discussion with the experienced officials I know about this topic. And they certainly would not be debating PC foul vs T very long that is for sure. Because someone that is well respected would mention common sense and this kind of discussion would be over. I think there are individuals making this more difficult, not a real debate of what the intent of the rules are in this area.

Peace

Why? :confused: Does he no longer fit the definition in 4-1-1?

When are we going to start talking real world officiating and stop talking about his made up rulebook/discussion board officiating?

Peace

In my defense, I have already said twice now that I can understand why people want this to be a technical foul, or would call it as a technical foul (even if they know that technically, it's a personal foul), and that there's not an observer in the world who would ding you for calling it a technical foul. I get it, I really do. It really really feels like a technical foul. A technical foul is the expected call.

My only contribution to this thread is to point out that, BY RULE, (and contrary to many of the early posts in the thread) this is a personal foul.

Not sure how it is a personal foul when no part of the contact would be considered a foul in any part of the game. No displacement, neither player prevented from normal movement, just one player landing on their shoulders after a dunk to embarrass them (what other reason does Rondo land on him for). Even if it was accidental, you separate them and move on, but this was done on purpose IMHO. It is not technically a personal foul unless there is some displacement. And until I see a ruling on these specifics then there is no way you can say this is "technically" a PC foul. Again, I do not see how this play was intended to be a personal foul of any kind when all the interpretations with such a play do not include this action.

Peace

Everyone should go back and read definitions 4-16 (Dunking) and 4-41 (Shooting, Try, Tap) as they relate to the airborne shooter rule (Rule 4-1).

An airborne shooter is "a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor." (emphasis added)

In order for a player to be an airborne shooter they have to have released the ball on a TRY. So what is a "try" and what is the "act of shooting"?

Rule 4-41...
ART. 1 . . . The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter.

ART. 2 . . . A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player’s hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.

ART. 3 . . . The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

(emphasis added)

A dunk is not a try -- it is a dunk.

Have at it :)

That's just silly.

If a player was fouled while dunking would you not award FTs? :eek:

BTW the ball DOES get released by a player when dunking.

I have a new question
 

If a player with very long arms has one foot on the end line and touches the ball while it is on the rim, is it out of bounds or basket interference?

We can discuss this question for ten more pages, or we can let this thread die an ugly death.

I vote for door number two. I hate seeing a thread I'm responsible for showing up as sarcastic subtext in Bob's posts in other threads. It has to stop!

You do realize that no one has commented for 2 days until your response? ;)

Peace

You mean Stretch Armstrong?

Insert laughing gif here.

SMH - I have been forced to pull out Charlie!!!!