PC foul?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

Respectfully disagree. If the shooter goes straight up, it looks to me that contact will be avoided.

[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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Respectfully disagree. If the shooter goes straight up, it looks to me that contact will be avoided.

I don't think that has much bearing, as the same could be said about the defender.

[Camron Rust]

While in some cases, I can see calling a foul on the offense when they deliberately jump towards an airborne shooter, it is still the defender who must be in the path of the opponent facing with feet down in order to have LGP. In this case, the step to make that shot attempt was roughly towards the basket....the offensive player took a path which the defender didn't yet have a legal right to occupy. I have a block in this example.

This would be no different than a defender rotating from the corner to cut off a drive from the top of the key and jumping across the shooter's path before the shooter went up. The defender doesn't get the right to a spot by getting airborne first.

If the defender was sailing by from front to back and was clearly going to pass behind the shooter but the shooter jumped back in a direction a shooter wouldn't normally take, I could see a PC foul.

[representing]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While in some cases, I can see calling a foul on the offense when they deliberately jump towards an airborne shooter, it is still the defender who must be in the path of the opponent facing with feet down in order to have LGP. In this case, the step to make that shot attempt was roughly towards the basket....the offensive player took a path which the defender didn't yet have a legal right to occupy. I have a block in this example.

This would be no different than a defender rotating from the corner to cut off a drive from the top of the key and jumping across the shooter's path before the shooter went up. The defender doesn't get the right to a spot by getting airborne first.

If the defender was sailing by from front to back and was clearly going to pass behind the shooter but the shooter jumped back in a direction a shooter wouldn't normally take, I could see a PC foul.

IMO, this is the best explanation on this topic. What I've always been told is that a defender can have LGP and still move upwards (i.e. jump) or backwards. But, if a defender is moving sideways (and doesn't get LPG first) or forward in the path of an offensive player, blocking charge.

EDIT: just noticed I said "blocking charge". I meant to say blocking foul.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by representing

IMO, this is the best explanation on this topic. What I've always been told is that a defender can have LGP and still move upwards (i.e. jump) or backwards. But, if a defender is moving sideways (and doesn't get LPG first) or forward in the path of an offensive player, blocking charge.

I am going with a defensive foul. now who thinks the offensive player gets shots? It appears in the video that the official behind the play is signaling the foul was "on the ground."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I am going with a defensive foul. now who thinks the offensive player gets shots? It appears in the video that the official behind the play is signaling the foul was "on the ground."

I don't use the phrase "on the ground". A player can be still touching the floor (which is what on the ground means) and still be in the act of shooting.

The official was signalling that the shooter was shooting a 2-point attempt - his right foot was still in contact with the floor when he was fouled and before he became airborne. He did this because this particular shooter was previously behind the arc and executed a move to draw a "foul" - the shooter even looked over his right shoulder to find the defender. The proof is that the official extended two fingers towards the ground where the right foot was located.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The movement by the shooter caused all the contact.

I guess if you mean an airborne defender that committed to block a shot is totally responsible for all contact in this case. Again this is not about who really was the cause, the defender is not in a legal position. The shooter has a right to shoot the ball and jump in all kinds of ways to do so.

Peace

[representing]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I am going with a defensive foul. now who thinks the offensive player gets shots? It appears in the video that the official behind the play is signaling the foul was "on the ground."

You might be right. I did see the official's hand point down but I thought that was more for pointing that the right foot was inside the arc, only a two points try.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess if you mean an airborne defender that committed to block a shot is totally responsible for all contact in this case. Again this is not about who really was the cause, the defender is not in a legal position. The shooter has a right to shoot the ball and jump in all kinds of ways to do so.

I'm shocked to see you write that. I disagree 100%. People are going to have different opinions about the video and that is why I posted it, but very few learned basketball officials are going to agree with your comment above.

I truly hope that this thread opens some eyes to what I believe is an incorrect mentality shown by many officials to favor the player with the ball and penalize defenders. I hope that people will take some time to consider which player is actually infringing upon the rules as written and just go with what they have always seen or been told.

[JugglingReferee]

The play-by-play of this game:


02:42 Landry Foul: Shooting (1 PF) (2 FTA)
Love Free Throw 1 of 2 Missed 02:42
Team Rebound 02:42
Stiemsma Substitution replaced by Cunningham 02:42
Love Free Throw 2 of 2 Missed 02:42