Hmmm.

He was not in his vertical space maybe? Let us forget where the shooter is located for a second, the defender jumped forward. So the defender is already suspect at this point. When you jump forward you are not vertical according to 4-45. I would think any official that has picked up a rulebook would understand this basic rule.

And no one is denying that the Love did not jump straight up, but how often shooters do that anyway. So are you telling me if this play was at the basket and the defender jumps first and not in their vertical space, you are going to call a PC foul on the shooter that jumps forward and not in their vertical space before reaching the floor? When you say yes, then I might agree with you. And considering that we show so many plays where that very thing takes place and it is funny I have never heard anyone suggest that we call a PC foul. Heck there have even been plays where there is a blocked shot and slight body contact where the defender and the shooter make contact and no one falls to the floor and no one has ever said, "That is a PC foul because the shooter caused the contact." At some point I guess I would understand if this conversation was had before. But this just sounds silly on so many levels that a defender that bites on a fake now is somehow legal.

Peace

Who cares, they just do.

When a player shoots a lay-up isn't he jumping outside his vertical plane? If a defender jumps at the same time from the other side of the basket and they collide are you going to "no call" it b/c the A1 was not vertical?

I did not say they necessarily do. But when the rules spend a lot of time talking about defenders and their LGP. The rules does not spend that same time talking about legal position for a ball handler. Also there is a reason their is a rule for an airborne shooter and if a defender is in a LGP, then any contact would be on the ball handler or shooter. I just find your stance laughable on so many levels. You can have a foul on any ball handler if they do something outside of their legal right, but a defender that is jumping and not legal as no special protection. The shooter does have some special protection and even the ball handler when they say it is a foul to simply put hands on the dribbler.

Peace

If the defender had blocked Love's shot and then made this contact I'm sure then folks would said it should be a foul because you can't just "jump through a shooter to block a shot". :D

Great discussion on this topic BTW. I just honestly believe that the contact would have been avoided. Next I look at who is more responsible for this contact, and on this particular play I believe the offense is and for that reason I would go PC or nothing. Then just take my butt chewing from whichever coach I get it from!!;)

Yep.

+1000

Peace

Okay, I get your point about jumping while not in vertical plane. But what about this part: 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. I believe this trumps the LGP part anyway as it is in the rule book before LGP.

Simple question.
 

So the player does this 5 feet from the basket and gives a fake and the defender goes airborne, then the shooter jumps to make sure that contact takes place, you are calling a PC foul?

Peace

This is why I don't focus too much on who initiated the contact. Sometimes a defender makes a mistake that leaves him wide open to this play.

I don't usually either, but I think on this play it does play a factor.

That is different than the play we are looking at. The shooter in this play is not yet airborne. He moved into the path of the defender while starting the usual movement that precedes a try. Had Love been in the air with the same contact then yeah defender foul all the way. He moved into the path of the defender outside his shoulder width with his feet, creating the contact illegally according to the end of the paragraph of 4-23-1.

If the defender stays in his vertical plane, yes, if not, block.

So if A1 is dribbling the ball towards the basket and B2 comes running from the wing, jumps, and lands on A1's dribbling arm it's not a foul on B2?

I'm inclined to say just the opposite.

He is still a shooter. If Love does not even shoot and moves forward and is landed on by the jumping defender, that is still a foul on defender. So this, "He caused contact with the shooter" is frankly garbage. Now I would agree that a ball handler is not absolved from all actions like doing something intentional or flagrant, but his action was not either. He was making sure he was contacted, but nothing out of the ordinary. Better yet, I guess if a ball handler is dribbling hard to the basket and the defender is not in a LGP, you would suggest well if the ball handler was not moving forward then the contact would not have taken place? Why does that change drastically when the defender is airborne?

Here is the problem I have with your point of view in this discussion. You are only focusing on one reference. You are not considering common practice, interpretation, other rules that apply to this situation. There is a reason there is an entire definition about LGP. There are no definitions as to what a ball handler must do specifically in order to be responsible for a foul. There is an airborne shooter rule that states that an airborne shooter is in the act of shooting until they reach the floor. Nothing in that rule states an airborne shooter is responsible for any contact unless the defender is in a LGP. There is no responsibility on the ball handler to move in a specific way as the rules states about the defender. This is why we say "Referee the defense" as what they do is the reason we have a foul or not have a foul.

Peace