Whaddya got?

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do not go troubling trouble.

May I borrow this?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BLydic

May I borrow this?

I heard it from someone else, of course you can.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Rsi,

I appreciate the trying to figure out what to do part of this, but the player Rondo landed on did not appear to be in LGP. If you called that, then you might have to explain to someone why that was your decision.
...
Calling a PC foul would not only be questionable, but not "technically" correct with how other factors are not present at that moment to make this a simply PC foul. Do not go troubling trouble.

Peace

Last time I checked, LGP was not a requirement for there to be a PC foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Last time I checked, LGP was not a requirement for there to be a PC foul.

I did not say you must only be in LGP to have a PC foul called in your favor. Please find the exact quote where I made that statement. If you read my entire comments, I was responding to the position that this player was not in LGP, not that you cannot ever call a foul for that reason and that reason alone.

As the factors that we are discussing in this play, an airborne player which the rules says (4-23-5d) the guard must have obtained LGP before the opponent leaves the floor. The defender not only jumps into and towards Rondo, but he also was in an illegal position if any significant contact took place. I guess if you wanted to go there, there would be justification to call a foul on the defender much more than on the airborne player. That would be more proper if we are talking about a PC foul vs. a blocking foul in this situation if you ask me. This is also why we get paid the big bucks right?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say you must only be in LGP to have a PC foul called in your favor. Please find the exact quote where I made that statement. If you read my entire comments, I was responding to the position that this player was not in LGP, not that you cannot ever call a foul for that reason and that reason alone.

No, but you threw LGP into the discussion as the reason you can't call a PC foul here when it's completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As the factors that we are discussing in this play, an airborne player which the rules says (4-23-5d) the guard must have obtained LGP before the opponent leaves the floor. The defender not only jumps into and towards Rondo, but he also was in an illegal position if any significant contact took place. I guess if you wanted to go there, there would be justification to call a foul on the defender much more than on the airborne player. That would be more proper if we are talking about a PC foul vs. a blocking foul in this situation if you ask me. This is also why we get paid the big bucks right?

Anyone who calls a defensive (shooting) foul here is going to get an *** chewing for not calling the T for using the rim to change his direction. And by the time the contact here occurs, the defender is walking away from Rondo. You can't rundown a defender from behind even if he doesn't have LGP.

sorry, but there's more justification for a PC foul (by rule) than a bocking foul. I'm still going with the T for hanging on the rim and ignoring the contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, but you threw LGP into the discussion as the reason you can't call a PC foul here when it's completely irrelevant.

I brought this up because it would be a factor in this play if we consider calling a PC foul. And this defender that was landed on was not in LGP. If you are going to have a PC Foul, then you better discuss that part of this play too.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Anyone who calls a defensive (shooting) foul here is going to get an *** chewing for not calling the T for using the rim to change his direction. And by the time the contact here occurs, the defender is walking away from Rondo. You can't rundown a defender from behind even if he doesn't have LGP.

sorry, but there's more justification for a PC foul (by rule) than a bocking foul. I'm still going with the T for hanging on the rim and ignoring the contact.

I think if someone called either they would be chewed out at least they would in my world. Just because you say there is more justification for one foul over another does not make it so either. Maybe you feel there is more justification personally, but the fact that no one independently brought this up as an issue other than an official that is trying to learn (nothing wrong with that at all) is telling to me how many would even consider such a call.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I brought this up because it would be a factor in this play if we consider calling a PC foul. And this defender that was landed on was not in LGP. If you are going to have a PC Foul, then you better discuss that part of this play too.

Peace

Not relevant. Player doesn't have LGP but it could still be a PC foul. LGP is not necessary at all in this play so there is no need to even discuss it.

[MD Longhorn]

I find it odd that anyone wants to T this for grabbing the rim, when there was clearly someone somewhat underneath him at that moment - doesn't such an instance give the shooter MORE leeway regarding hanging onto the rim longer to avoid landing on someone? In fact, someone early in the thread suggests reminding him that he should have held on LONGER.

I'm not sure I have a foul of any sort here.

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I find it odd that anyone wants to T this for grabbing the rim, when there was clearly someone somewhat underneath him at that moment - doesn't such an instance give the shooter MORE leeway regarding hanging onto the rim longer to avoid landing on someone? In fact, someone early in the thread suggests reminding him that he should have held on LONGER.

I'm not sure I have a foul of any sort here.

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I find it odd that anyone wants to T this for grabbing the rim, when there was clearly someone somewhat underneath him at that moment - doesn't such an instance give the shooter MORE leeway regarding hanging onto the rim longer to avoid landing on someone? In fact, someone early in the thread suggests reminding him that he should have held on LONGER.

I'm not sure I have a foul of any sort here.

Hanging on the rim for safety is not the same as doing a chin-up, lifting up, or swinging around to land on someone. He gets to grab the rim for safety....anything more reopens the door for a possible T. And that was certainly more, even if he missed the player.

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

I agree, but grabbing & hanging to prevent injury and swinging & mounting to humiliate the defender are two different things.

Depending on what has happened prior to this play, would make this decision easier.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

Yep.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not relevant. Player doesn't have LGP but it could still be a PC foul. LGP is not necessary at all in this play so there is no need to even discuss it.

I am not the one that tried to turn this into a PC foul vs Block vs. T conversation. I just responded to the suggestion this should even be a factor at all. Maybe you did not read the entire thread I do not know.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

Nevada's point is that by rule you can't call an unsporting T for contact involving an airborne shooter; even if the ball is dead.

I think this is a situation for which the rules are unprepared, as I'm pretty sure the gurus on the committee would prefer to see a T called for this action (even if you don't call it for hanging due to the player underneath).

Maybe it could be remedied by revising the denfitions so that a player is no longer an airborne shooter once he does a chin-up on the rim.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

...
Maybe it could be remedied by revising the denfitions so that a player is no longer an airborne shooter once he does a chin-up on the rim.

+1...once he hangs on the rim, for safety purposes or illegally, he is no longer an airborne shooter.