Whaddya got?

[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.

[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