![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
In the video, Love is clearly behind the 3 point line. He sees that the defender has foolishly left his feet, and then steps forward and gets the defender to land on him. Love did not need to do that, he could simply have launched his 3...but that has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately for the defender, there is no rule that guarantees him the right to launch himself forward and be given leeway in making contact with the shooter. Unless the rules are changed to give the defender the same protection as an airborne shooter, this really has to be a foul on the defender.
I get it that some people don't like it...but that's the rules. |
|
|||
Quote:
before this thread I would have said easy peasy foul on D. But after analyzing rules more closely, still not sure I would be correct. |
|
|||
Quote:
He was not in his vertical space maybe? Let us forget where the shooter is located for a second, the defender jumped forward. So the defender is already suspect at this point. When you jump forward you are not vertical according to 4-45. I would think any official that has picked up a rulebook would understand this basic rule. And no one is denying that the Love did not jump straight up, but how often shooters do that anyway. So are you telling me if this play was at the basket and the defender jumps first and not in their vertical space, you are going to call a PC foul on the shooter that jumps forward and not in their vertical space before reaching the floor? When you say yes, then I might agree with you. And considering that we show so many plays where that very thing takes place and it is funny I have never heard anyone suggest that we call a PC foul. Heck there have even been plays where there is a blocked shot and slight body contact where the defender and the shooter make contact and no one falls to the floor and no one has ever said, "That is a PC foul because the shooter caused the contact." At some point I guess I would understand if this conversation was had before. But this just sounds silly on so many levels that a defender that bites on a fake now is somehow legal. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
+1000 Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Here is the problem I have with your point of view in this discussion. You are only focusing on one reference. You are not considering common practice, interpretation, other rules that apply to this situation. There is a reason there is an entire definition about LGP. There are no definitions as to what a ball handler must do specifically in order to be responsible for a foul. There is an airborne shooter rule that states that an airborne shooter is in the act of shooting until they reach the floor. Nothing in that rule states an airborne shooter is responsible for any contact unless the defender is in a LGP. There is no responsibility on the ball handler to move in a specific way as the rules states about the defender. This is why we say "Referee the defense" as what they do is the reason we have a foul or not have a foul. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Read your definitions some more to see why it might matter in a different play. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() You can think whatever you like. But when very experienced and officials that work different levels (exclude me from that equation) are challenging you on your rules knowledge, then that should tell you something. You have a lot of heavy weights taking you on about this issue. You would think that would click. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Common Shooting Foul Followed by a Technical Foul | tophat67 | Basketball | 9 | Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:57am |
Foul where distance gained prior to foul | wwcfoa43 | Football | 15 | Sun Feb 20, 2011 06:04pm |
Can you just call a team foul if you are not sure who the foul is on? Diebler | biggravy | Basketball | 18 | Sun Dec 13, 2009 07:20pm |
offensive foul, defensive foul or no call? | thereluctantref | Basketball | 2 | Mon Mar 13, 2006 01:12pm |
Anger over referee's foul calls triggers a bigger foul after game | BktBallRef | Basketball | 10 | Mon Mar 06, 2006 02:36am |