I was about to bring this up as well.

It also says, A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.

Is jumping into the air and being able to land without the offensive causing contact, a normal defensive movement, is the question.

LGP is not at play when the defender is moving towards the shooter at contact.

I cannot even believe this is a debate. The shooter and the ball handler under the rules is given a lot of consideration for when they are contacted by a defender. The rules or interpretations clearly do not allow a defender to basically touch a ball handler and never suggests that it is handchecking to do the same to a non-ball handler. People suggest in almost every situation any contact with an airborne shooter is a foul, but then we now want to debate a defender that left his feet is not giving consideration to be fouled, but if he never left his feet there would be no contact.

I sure love this board. ;)

Peace

You can move toward the shooter with LGP. The defender just can't be the one to cause contact while moving forward.

Say what? You lose LGP as soon as you move toward an opponent. You can only move backwards, sideways, or obliquely to maintain LGP.

Seems like a pretty easy play in my eyes as well. I'd expect to see this play called a foul every single time in an NBA and NCAA game.

It looks like in the video that the defender was trying to avoid contact. Would anyone consider the defender to have LGP and be moving obliquely to the shooter. Shooter causes the contact. Also, it appears the defender had one foot on the floor when the contact occurred. (Can't be sure because shooters leg blocks view.) Does this change anything.

Still not decided. just asking questions.

Not only was the defender not vertical, he was not in a Legal Guarding Position. I honestly do not see why this is a debate. And those suggesting such have not used any rules to support their position.

I guess I could see if Love threw and elbow to the head or did something flagrant that resulted in contact, but that is not what took place.

Oh well, I know what I am going to call. And I do not work for any of these people here that think otherwise. Life is good. ;)

Peace

No.

Where does it say in the rulebook anything about "Trying to avoid contact while going airborne?" If you can show that to me, then maybe that would make some sense. That makes no sense what so ever. He jumped too early to make an attempt to block or obstruct the shot. He was not in a legal position and the ball handler noticed that he was about to get jumped into and made a legal move. Again, show me a rules reference and do not tell me what you just think?

Peace

4-45 does say that neither the defense nor the offense may violate the others vertical plane and cause contact. It does look like the contact would have been avoided had the offensive player not jumped into the defenses vertical plane and caused the contact. The offense iniatied the contact by jumping into the defensive player.

You misquoted me by adding "while going airborne" to my statement. My statement has to do with when does he lose/gain LGP. The rule says nothing about having to be in front of a shooter to obtain LGP, only that both feet are touching the playing court and guard's torso must be facing the opponent. It doesn't say anything about which way the shooter is facing.

I would say he lost LGP when he stepped out of bounds but reobtained it when both feet are on the ground just before he jumps. 4-23-1-c says he can move laterally, obliquely provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs. Defender was moving to a spot IN FRONT of opponent, not toward opponent. The shooter moved into the defender's path.

Now you post to me why the defender was not in a legal position.

When contact occurred, he was moving towards the shooter.

The question to me is whether screening rules or guarding rules take precedence.

I'm inclined to side with guarding rules here since B7 was clearly guarding and attempting to guard A1. If B had been standing directly in front of Love and jumped first, towards Love, I don't think we'd be discussing this so long.

So you are saying that a shooter that jumps forward and a defender that jumps forward, you are penalizing the shooter because they were not in a legal position?

OK, you go with that one.

Peace