PC foul?

[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?

[bob jenkins]

4-23 Gurading is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an OFFENSIVE opponent.

So, guarding is an act by the defense.

Only the offensive player is protected by 4-23-4b and 4-23-5d (if airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor)

So, yes, which player has the ball can be a consideration.

I have a foul on the defense.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Only the offensive player is protected by 4-23-4b and 4-23-5d (if airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor)

This is why I can see a foul on the defense.

Having said that, someone here said -- paraphrasing -- that the shooter didn't contact the defender with an appendage. What about the entire body? It looks to me like the shooter clearly threw everything he had into the defender, which is why I also have a PC foul. Isn't this one of those rare instances where you can have both?

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This is why I can see a foul on the defense.

Having said that, someone here said -- paraphrasing -- that the shooter didn't contact the defender with an appendage. What about the entire body? It looks to me like the shooter clearly threw everything he had into the defender, which is why I also have a PC foul. Isn't this one of those rare instances where you can have both?

Still undecided on this play. Here's something I don't fully understand. Obviously the defender obtained LGP and tried to block first shot, offense "passes" off team mate and regather's the ball, then shoots. My question is when does the defender lose LGP and secondly, would anyone consider that he had reobtained LGP while approaching shooter from behind. I think according to 4-23-2, he had LGP albeit from the side/behind.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Still undecided on this play. Here's something I don't fully understand. Obviously the defender obtained LGP and tried to block first shot, offense "passes" off team mate and regather's the ball, then shoots. My question is when does the defender lose LGP and secondly, would anyone consider that he had reobtained LGP while approaching shooter from behind. I think according to 4-23-2, he had LGP albeit from the side/behind.

LGP is not at play when the defender is moving towards the shooter at contact.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Probably a no call...then again, this play doesn't happen if one of the players doesn't have the ball, so it's a moot point.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

Probably a no call...then again, this play doesn't happen if one of the players doesn't have the ball, so it's a moot point.

Yes it could. Let's assume this play is close to the endline and instead of Kevin Love, A1 = Derek Williams, and A1 is elevating to catch an alley-oop.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes it could. Let's assume this play is close to the endline and instead of Kevin Love, A1 = Derek Williams, and A1 is elevating to catch an alley-oop.

I was talking about the specific play in the OP...but I should have worded it better...these type of plays involve a play on the ball.

[OKREF]

After watching this several times and looking at the rulebook. Neither player stays within his vertical plane. Maybe it is a no call. Had the offense gone straight up and stayed in his vertical plane, than yes a foul on the defense would be warranted, but he doesn't he jumps outside of his vertical plane.

[Adam]

I was thinking of screens, actually, either offensive or defensive (trying to slow the cutter).

Add to the the ball screen, which is what this play looks like to me.