PC foul?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Doesn't contact occur because the shooter jumped into the defender?

Yes. But the defender doesn't have LGP, nor verticality, and is airborne. It seems like some posters are stuck on that part, but in my mind, it doesn't matter in this case. It's simply a smart and effective play by the shooter. I personally don't think it's that difficult. It's as though we're discussing a Stockton-esque play where the shooter who is jumping sideways into either a stationary or vertical defender and drawing the foul. We're not. This defender does not have LGP, and has no right to land when meeting the airborne shooter is on a path that intersects with his path.

Someone recently posted a baseline drive and contact play that is completely analagous. I could think up about 20 other analogies where the same thing is happening. They're all fouls on the defender. And they'd all be called fouls on the defender, I'm betting, in-game, by officials at all levels.

..Also, "IMO" all over the place, here.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm inclined to say just the opposite.

What's great about all this is, none of us no what we would call until we have it and see it at full speed.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

Why would it not be?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

What's great about all this is, none of us no what we would call until we have it and see it at full speed.

Part of experience is seeing plays in all kinds of ways and knowing where the rules and standards apply. I do not need to see a play live to know how to call this play or how I would call this live or in slow motion. This is about as basic a foul on the defender as I can think of based on my experience. I call a lot of PC fouls and this would not be one of them.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Part of experience is seeing plays in all kinds of ways and knowing where the rules and standards apply. I do not need to see a play live to know how to call this play or how I would call this live or in slow motion. This is about as basic a foul on the defender as I can think of based on my experience. I call a lot of PC fouls and this would not be one of them.

Peace

Your right, and I am probably overthinking this. It would be a tough sell on the PC. However easy sell on a block.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter. Foul on defense. Thanks jrut. I learned a lot. My original instinct was correct but now I know WHY.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter.

No, he's not.

Read your definitions some more to see why it might matter in a different play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Why would it not be?

According you and a fellow from Oklahoma, A1 would be responsible for moving into the path of an airborne defender, right?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

According you and a fellow from Oklahoma, A1 would be responsible for moving into the path of an airborne defender, right?

I never said that, and that is a different situation than this one.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

What's great about all this is, none of us no what we would call until we have it and see it at full speed.

Well, an occasional poster to this forum actually worked the T-Wolves/Warriors game.

And the video I saw was at full speed.

And I know what I would call.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I never said that, and that is a different situation than this one.

Does this count:

Originally Posted by OKREF

Agreed. In the video, the defense jumps and has a right to come down,....

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

According you and a fellow from Oklahoma, A1 would be responsible for moving into the path of an airborne defender, right?

My point was that Love extended into the path of the defender illegally, which, in your scenario the ball handler was still in a legal position. I would retract that statement now after realizing that an airborne shooter is considered airborne even though they may be on the ground but are in the act of shooting. But now I am confused becuase I have no idea what the H-E double hockey sticks Bob is referring to.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter. Foul on defense. Thanks jrut. I learned a lot. My original instinct was correct but now I know WHY.

The act of shooting and airborne shooter are not necessarily the same thing. Honestly I do not care what your original thought process was, I do not have to work with you.

You can think whatever you like. But when very experienced and officials that work different levels (exclude me from that equation) are challenging you on your rules knowledge, then that should tell you something. You have a lot of heavy weights taking you on about this issue. You would think that would click.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

My point was that Love extended into the path of the defender illegally ...

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?

I am still waiting for an answer to this question.

Peace