Whaddya got?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

By definition, however, an unsporting foul is a NON-CONTACT foul (4-19-14).

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".

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Brad

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

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

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".

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

IMO, you do have rule support for a T.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I agree totally here.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...

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.

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

A1 takes off, shot is blocked from behind by B1 at the same time or just before the horn goes off, A1 crashes into B2 after horn.

I think this is more in line with the spirit and vision of the exception for an airborne shooter. And also a like more likely to occur in the normal events of a game.

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