PC foul?

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not only was the defender not vertical, he was not in a Legal Guarding Position....

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, that's why none of the "foul on Kevin Love" folks have answered my question up-thread, b/c it would invalidate their assertions about the play in the video.

"B2 is running running parallel to the endline and jumps towards the basket and A1, approaching perpendicular to the endline, then goes airborne towards the basket and they collide mid-air. Who is the foul on?"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Why does that matter? What if he didn't know the defender was coming and jumped forward to shoot a floater?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why does that matter? What if he didn't know the defender was coming and jumped forward to shoot a floater?

Love doesn't jump forward in this play. He jumps sideways into the defender.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Love doesn't jump forward in this play. He jumps sideways into the defender.

And again, what legal position is an airborne defender that is not in his vertical space mean? Airborne shooters that jump into legal defenders are responsible for contact. How often do shooters jump vertical at the basic? This is basic stuff man, not sure what you are trying to prove.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why does that matter? What if he didn't know the defender was coming and jumped forward to shoot a floater?

In the end, it doesn't, because the defender was defending that shot. If, however, the defender was trying to get past to guard another player, then this is likely a ball screen.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

So you are saying that a shooter that jumps forward and a defender that jumps forward, you are penalizing the shooter because they were not in a legal position?

OK, you go with that one.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So you are saying that a shooter that jumps forward and a defender that jumps forward, you are penalizing the shooter because they were not in a legal position?

OK, you go with that one.

Peace

What I am saying is, in this particular situation, Love jumped into the defender. Would contact have been made if Love doesn't jump into him? Love jumps sideways not forward.