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.