Whaddya got?

[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.

[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

[Brad]

Everyone should go back and read definitions 4-16 (Dunking) and 4-41 (Shooting, Try, Tap) as they relate to the airborne shooter rule (Rule 4-1).

An airborne shooter is "a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor." (emphasis added)

In order for a player to be an airborne shooter they have to have released the ball on a TRY. So what is a "try" and what is the "act of shooting"?

Rule 4-41...
ART. 1 . . . The act of shooting begins simultaneously with the start of the try or tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight, and includes the airborne shooter.

ART. 2 . . . A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player’s hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.

ART. 3 . . . The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

(emphasis added)

A dunk is not a try -- it is a dunk.

Have at it

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Brad

A dunk is not a try -- it is a dunk.

That's just silly.

If a player was fouled while dunking would you not award FTs?

BTW the ball DOES get released by a player when dunking.

[rsl]

If a player with very long arms has one foot on the end line and touches the ball while it is on the rim, is it out of bounds or basket interference?

We can discuss this question for ten more pages, or we can let this thread die an ugly death.

I vote for door number two. I hate seeing a thread I'm responsible for showing up as sarcastic subtext in Bob's posts in other threads. It has to stop!

[IREFU2]

[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?