PC foul?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

Not only was the defender not vertical, he was not in a Legal Guarding Position. I honestly do not see why this is a debate. And those suggesting such have not used any rules to support their position.

I guess I could see if Love threw and elbow to the head or did something flagrant that resulted in contact, but that is not what took place.

Oh well, I know what I am going to call. And I do not work for any of these people here that think otherwise. Life is good.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Based on some people's interprations a defender could just run and jump, timing his landing to intersect and land on a moving ball-handler and the foul would be on the ball-handler.

And now people want to apply screening requirements on airborne shooters.

If the play in this video had happened at the rim instead of the 3-point line there wouldn't even be a debate.

Only as far as he saw the defender coming and deliberately jumped into his path instead of actually taking a shot.

But, I'm going back to my initial instinct of the foul that was called. It was, I think, a good exercise, but guarding rules prevail here.

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Would anyone consider the defender to have LGP and be moving obliquely to the shooter.

No.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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.

Where does it say in the rulebook anything about "Trying to avoid contact while going airborne?" If you can show that to me, then maybe that would make some sense. That makes no sense what so ever. He jumped too early to make an attempt to block or obstruct the shot. He was not in a legal position and the ball handler noticed that he was about to get jumped into and made a legal move. Again, show me a rules reference and do not tell me what you just think?

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where does it say in the rulebook anything about "Trying to avoid contact while going airborne?" If you can show that to me, then maybe that would make some sense. That makes no sense what so ever. He jumped too early to make an attempt to block or obstruct the shot. He was not in a legal position and the ball handler noticed that he was about to get jumped into and made a legal move. Again, show me a rules reference and do not tell me what you just think?

Peace

4-45 does say that neither the defense nor the offense may violate the others vertical plane and cause contact. It does look like the contact would have been avoided had the offensive player not jumped into the defenses vertical plane and caused the contact. The offense iniatied the contact by jumping into the defensive player.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where does it say in the rulebook anything about "Trying to avoid contact while going airborne?" If you can show that to me, then maybe that would make some sense. That makes no sense what so ever. He jumped too early to make an attempt to block or obstruct the shot. He was not in a legal position and the ball handler noticed that he was about to get jumped into and made a legal move. Again, show me a rules reference and do not tell me what you just think?

Peace

You misquoted me by adding "while going airborne" to my statement. My statement has to do with when does he lose/gain LGP. The rule says nothing about having to be in front of a shooter to obtain LGP, only that both feet are touching the playing court and guard's torso must be facing the opponent. It doesn't say anything about which way the shooter is facing.

I would say he lost LGP when he stepped out of bounds but reobtained it when both feet are on the ground just before he jumps. 4-23-1-c says he can move laterally, obliquely provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs. Defender was moving to a spot IN FRONT of opponent, not toward opponent. The shooter moved into the defender's path.

Now you post to me why the defender was not in a legal position.

[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.