Whaddya got?

[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?