PC foul?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

He wasn't vertical, though. He jumped in the direction of the shooter.

I'm amused by this thread. This is an easy, easy foul. I can't believe anyone would even entertain rewarding the defender for getting faked out this way.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Doesn't contact occur because the shooter jumped into the defender? If the shooter goes straight are we sure contact would have happened?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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.

I did not quote your actual words. I simply was asking what rules basis for your argument. Because if that is the case then show at least one interpretation that supports your position? I doubt you will find one because when the defender is not in a LGP, they are considered to be the person that has fouled when the ball handler or shooter is involved. It would be one thing if he was vertical as a defender and the shooter jumped into him, but that is not what happen. The defender was already in a non-vertical or LGP situation and the shooter did what he has the right to do and jump in any direction. Now of the defender was in a LGP or vertical, then I would agree with you about the actions of the shooter or Kevin Love in this play. That is not what happened and not what I would call. At some point common sense also has to reign in this situation.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

What I am saying is, in this particular situation, Love jumped into the defender. Would contact have been made if Love doesn't jump into him? Love jumps sideways not forward.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Based on some people's interprations a defender could just run and jump, timing his landing to intersect and land on a moving ball-handler and the foul would be on the ball-handler.

And now people want to apply screening requirements on airborne shooters.

If the play in this video had happened at the rim instead of the 3-point line there wouldn't even be a debate.

Only as far as he saw the defender coming and deliberately jumped into his path instead of actually taking a shot.

But, I'm going back to my initial instinct of the foul that was called. It was, I think, a good exercise, but guarding rules prevail here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not only was the defender not vertical, he was not in a Legal Guarding Position....

Based on some people's interprations a defender could just run and jump, timing his landing to intersect and land on a moving ball-handler and the foul would be on the ball-handler.

And now people want to apply screening requirements on airborne shooters.

If the play in this video had happened at the rim instead of the 3-point line there wouldn't even be a debate, that's why none of the "foul on Kevin Love" folks have answered my question up-thread, b/c it would invalidate their assertions about the play in the video.

"B2 is running running parallel to the endline and jumps towards the basket and A1, approaching perpendicular to the endline, then goes airborne towards the basket and they collide mid-air. Who is the foul on?"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Only as far as he saw the defender coming and deliberately jumped into his path instead of actually taking a shot.
....

Why does that matter? What if he didn't know the defender was coming and jumped forward to shoot a floater?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Doesn't contact occur because the shooter jumped into the defender? If the shooter goes straight are we sure contact would have happened?

No, it wouldn't have, but the defender jumped horizontally in an attempt to guard the shooter. It's not necessarily about who initiates contact?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why does that matter? What if he didn't know the defender was coming and jumped forward to shoot a floater?

Love doesn't jump forward in this play. He jumps sideways into the defender.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why does that matter? What if he didn't know the defender was coming and jumped forward to shoot a floater?

In the end, it doesn't, because the defender was defending that shot. If, however, the defender was trying to get past to guard another player, then this is likely a ball screen.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

No, it wouldn't have, but the defender jumped horizontally in an attempt to guard the shooter. It's not necessarily about who initiates contact?

And Love jumps sideways, not forward. In this particular case he caused the contact.

[rockyroad]

In the video, Love is clearly behind the 3 point line. He sees that the defender has foolishly left his feet, and then steps forward and gets the defender to land on him. Love did not need to do that, he could simply have launched his 3...but that has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately for the defender, there is no rule that guarantees him the right to launch himself forward and be given leeway in making contact with the shooter. Unless the rules are changed to give the defender the same protection as an airborne shooter, this really has to be a foul on the defender.

I get it that some people don't like it...but that's the rules.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not quote your actual words. I simply was asking what rules basis for your argument. Because if that is the case then show at least one interpretation that supports your position? I doubt you will find one because when the defender is not in a LGP, they are considered to be the person that has fouled when the ball handler or shooter is involved. It would be one thing if he was vertical as a defender and the shooter jumped into him, but that is not what happen. The defender was already in a non-vertical or LGP situation and the shooter did what he has the right to do and jump in any direction. Now of the defender was in a LGP or vertical, then I would agree with you about the actions of the shooter or Kevin Love in this play. That is not what happened and not what I would call. At some point common sense also has to reign in this situation.

Peace

You still did not state why the defender does not have LGP. Please answer that question. I quoted the rule and the defender met both criteria. Next, 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position.

before this thread I would have said easy peasy foul on D. But after analyzing rules more closely, still not sure I would be correct.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Love doesn't jump forward in this play. He jumps sideways into the defender.

And again, what legal position is an airborne defender that is not in his vertical space mean? Airborne shooters that jump into legal defenders are responsible for contact. How often do shooters jump vertical at the basic? This is basic stuff man, not sure what you are trying to prove.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And again, what legal position is an airborne defender that is not in his vertical space mean? Airborne shooters that jump into legal defenders are responsible for contact. How often do shooters jump vertical at the basic? This is basic stuff man, not sure what you are trying to prove.

Peace

Why does the offense get to jump out of their vertical space, but not the defense? Just seems we always penalize the defense when creating contact, well Love creates this contact, and is more responsible for the contact, so we either have PC, or nothing.