Whaddya got?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I can see Brad's point in that this is not the type of play intended to be a PC foul.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

[APG]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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

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.

I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with you.

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.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

People are not calling a T on Rondo because he made contact. He tried to land on him to taunt him.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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:

A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and
punches A1. RULING: Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul
for fighting and are disqualified. A1’s action is defined as fighting when the taunting
caused B1 to retaliate by fighting. (10-3; 10-3-6c: 10-3-8)

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:

A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul.
While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously.

RULING:

Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double personal foul, no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point
of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in
from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-
possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10
Penalty 1c, 8a(1))

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

DEAD WRONG!!!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Try this one:

DEAD-BALL LIVE-BALL FOULS

4.19.14 SITUATION:

What type of foul is committed when: (a) during a deadball
period A1 taunts B1; (b) B1 crosses the end line and fouls thrower A1; (c)
immediately after the ball passes through the basket, airborne shooter A1 fouls
B1; or (d) B1 reaches through the end-line boundary and slaps the ball from the
hands of thrower A1. RULING: It is an unsporting technical foul in (a) and an
intentional personal foul in (b). There is no score in (c), as A1 has committed a
player-control foul. The foul in (d) is a technical foul charged to B1.

According to the definiton provided in 4-19-14 an unsporting technical foul is NONcontact, so the taunt has to be free of contact.