PC foul?

[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.

[JRutledge]

I cannot even believe this is a debate. The shooter and the ball handler under the rules is given a lot of consideration for when they are contacted by a defender. The rules or interpretations clearly do not allow a defender to basically touch a ball handler and never suggests that it is handchecking to do the same to a non-ball handler. People suggest in almost every situation any contact with an airborne shooter is a foul, but then we now want to debate a defender that left his feet is not giving consideration to be fouled, but if he never left his feet there would be no contact.

I sure love this board.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot even believe this is a debate. The shooter and the ball handler under the rules is given a lot of consideration for when they are contacted by a defender. The rules or interpretations clearly do not allow a defender to basically touch a ball handler and never suggests that it is handchecking to do the same to a non-ball handler. People suggest in almost every situation any contact with an airborne shooter is a foul, but then we now want to debate a defender that left his feet is not giving consideration to be fouled, but if he never left his feet there would be no contact.

I sure love this board.

Peace

Seems like a pretty easy play in my eyes as well. I'd expect to see this play called a foul every single time in an NBA and NCAA game.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot even believe this is a debate. The shooter and the ball handler under the rules is given a lot of consideration for when they are contacted by a defender. The rules or interpretations clearly do not allow a defender to basically touch a ball handler and never suggests that it is handchecking to do the same to a non-ball handler. People suggest in almost every situation any contact with an airborne shooter is a foul, but then we now want to debate a defender that left his feet is not giving consideration to be fouled, but if he never left his feet there would be no contact.

I sure love this board.

Peace

It looks like in the video that the defender was trying to avoid contact. Would anyone consider the defender to have LGP and be moving obliquely to the shooter. Shooter causes the contact. Also, it appears the defender had one foot on the floor when the contact occurred. (Can't be sure because shooters leg blocks view.) Does this change anything.

Still not decided. just asking questions.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

You can move toward the shooter with LGP. The defender just can't be the one to cause contact while moving forward.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

You can move toward the shooter with LGP. The defender just can't be the one to cause contact while moving forward.

Say what? You lose LGP as soon as you move toward an opponent. You can only move backwards, sideways, or obliquely to maintain LGP.

[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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by 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.

No rule requires a player to remain in his "vertical plane." Doing so is no guarantee that a player's actions are legal, and failing to do so is not as such illegal. This worry is a red herring.

The shooter is allowed to drive to the basket, and the defender to block his progress, provided each does so legally.

And whether their movements leading up to contact are legal is, of course, the question.