PC foul?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

If an offensive player and defensive player are moving toward each other, then the greater responsibility for the contact is going to be on the defender.

Interesting thought. I'm not sure that 4-23-3c applies to an airborne player. Which has more weight in a situation such as this--4-23-3c or 4-23-1.

Originally Posted by APG

I'm not sure what your trying to ask in your hypothetical. Are you asking us to judge the play as if the shooter was in the GSW's defender position and the defender was in Love's position and their actions were the exact same?

Yep, that is what I am asking you to consider. I'm trying to discover if people are giving additional rights to the player with the ball. It seems to me that in the case of a collision such as this, it shouldn't matter which player, if either, has the ball. The foul should be based upon the actions of the players and the presence of the ball isn't relevant.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The foul should be based upon the actions of the players and the presence of the ball isn't relevant.

I see this point.

From what I see, the defender is responsible for contact for being a bit reckless, and the shooter is clearly responsible for contact from his leaning in (which was more than "a little").

Here's a novel idea: double foul, before the release. Get 'em both, and give blue the ball back on the sideline.

[OKREF]

Player Control. The defense would have avoided the contact had the shooter gone straight up. He jumped into the defensive player. Offense initiated all the contact.

[JRutledge]

Shooting foul all the way. Defender not in LGP and the movement by the shooter did nothing to cause contact IMO.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Shooting foul all the way. Defender not in LGP and the movement by the shooter did nothing to cause contact IMO.

Peace

The movement by the shooter caused all the contact.

[zm1283]

Shooting foul on the defense.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The movement by the shooter caused all the contact.

Nothing the defender did caused any contact? If I were the offensive coach, I don't think I'd accept that explanation.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Nothing the defender did caused any contact? If I were the offensive coach, I don't think I'd accept that explanation.

Did the offensive player jump straight up, or did he go outside his vertical plane? He jumped into the defensive player. The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

Watch the clip again. If the shooter goes straight up, there will be no contact. He jumps into the defender creating the contact.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Did the offensive player jump straight up, or did he go outside his vertical plane? He jumped into the defensive player. The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

Watch the clip again. If the shooter goes straight up, there will be no contact. He jumps into the defender creating the contact.

My point is that in no way does the defender jump straight up, either. He jumped into the defensive player, sure, but the defender also jumps into the shooter.

[Adam]

I've got to consider an illegal ball screen.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The movement by the shooter caused all the contact.

I agree. The defender was trying to get to a spot, and the shooter's movements were premeditated in order to make contact. I may have gone with free throws live, but on replay, I'm not convinced.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Interesting thought. I'm not sure that 4-23-3c applies to an airborne player. Which has more weight in a situation such as this--4-23-3c or 4-23-1.



Yep, that is what I am asking you to consider. I'm trying to discover if people are giving additional rights to the player with the ball. It seems to me that in the case of a collision such as this, it shouldn't matter which player, if either, has the ball. The foul should be based upon the actions of the players and the presence of the ball isn't relevant.

I would probably have a foul still on the defender. I can't speak for others but I'm not granting the offensive player additional rights because he has the ball. I'm basing it on the action of the defender. I have a defensive player and offensive player moving toward each other. Defensive player is more responsible for the contact...and since the offensive player didn't do anything like lead with an elbow/forearm/kick out w/the leg, etc, I have a foul on the defender.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

I would probably have a foul still on the defender. I can't speak for others but I'm not granting the offensive player additional rights because he has the ball. I'm basing it on the action of the defender. I have a defensive player and offensive player moving toward each other. Defensive player is more responsible for the contact...and since the offensive player didn't do anything like lead with an elbow/forearm/kick out w/the leg, etc, I have a foul on the defender.

So switching who has the ball would cause you to change who is charged with the foul, yet you write that you aren't basing your call on that! I can't see how you can reconcile the two.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So switching who has the ball would cause you to change who is charged with the foul, yet you write that you aren't basing your call on that! I can't see how you can reconcile the two.

My answer doesn't have the prerequisite of having the ball. It just happens that in the example play, and in your hypothetical, one player has the ball. If you looked at what I said, I said the defensive player has the greater responsibility for contact when both an offensive player and defensive player are moving toward each other.

[Adam]

Let me ask this, what's the call if neither player has the ball?