PC foul?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

You still did not state why the defender does not have LGP. Please answer that question. I quoted the rule and the defender met both criteria. Next, 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position.

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.

Hmmm.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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...

If the defender had blocked Love's shot and then made this contact I'm sure then folks would said it should be a foul because you can't just "jump through a shooter to block a shot".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the defender had blocked Love's shot and then made this contact I'm sure then folks would said it should be a foul because you can't just "jump through a shooter to block a shot".

Yep.

+1000

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Hmmm.

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

Okay, I get your point about jumping while not in vertical plane. But what about this part: 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position. I believe this trumps the LGP part anyway as it is in the rule book before LGP.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Okay, I get your point about jumping while not in vertical plane. But what about this part: 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position. I believe this trumps the LGP part anyway as it is in the rule book before LGP.

He is still a shooter. If Love does not even shoot and moves forward and is landed on by the jumping defender, that is still a foul on defender. So this, "He caused contact with the shooter" is frankly garbage. Now I would agree that a ball handler is not absolved from all actions like doing something intentional or flagrant, but his action was not either. He was making sure he was contacted, but nothing out of the ordinary. Better yet, I guess if a ball handler is dribbling hard to the basket and the defender is not in a LGP, you would suggest well if the ball handler was not moving forward then the contact would not have taken place? Why does that change drastically when the defender is airborne?

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

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He is still a shooter. If Love does not even shoot and moves forward and is landed on by the jumping defender, that is still a foul on defender. So this, "He caused contact with the shooter" is frankly garbage. Now I would agree that a ball handler is not absolved from all actions like doing something intentional or flagrant, but his action was not either. He was making sure he was contacted, but nothing out of the ordinary. Better yet, I guess if a ball handler is dribbling hard to the basket and the defender is not in a LGP, you would suggest well if the ball handler was not moving forward then the contact would not have taken place? Why does that change drastically when the defender is airborne?

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

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter. Foul on defense. Thanks jrut. I learned a lot. My original instinct was correct but now I know WHY.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter.

No, he's not.

Read your definitions some more to see why it might matter in a different play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter. Foul on defense. Thanks jrut. I learned a lot. My original instinct was correct but now I know WHY.

The act of shooting and airborne shooter are not necessarily the same thing. Honestly I do not care what your original thought process was, I do not have to work with you.

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

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The act of shooting and airborne shooter are not necessarily the same thing. Honestly I do not care what your original thought process was, I do not have to work with you.

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

I was pretty sure I was wrong, just didn't know why. I use this forum to help me learn the rules better which I think is why everyone is on here. I can't quite tell if your comment is supposed to be condescending or just an observation. I know my rules knowledge isn't like those who have been doing this for decades and can quote from memory. I truly respect those people. I am just starting my third year as an official so I know I have a long way to go. Nevertheless, thanks to everyone for helping us noobs work through scenarios. And if you were being condescending, stop it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I was pretty sure I was wrong, just didn't know why. I use this forum to help me learn the rules better which I think is why everyone is on here. I can't quite tell if your comment is supposed to be condescending or just an observation. I know my rules knowledge isn't like those who have been doing this for decades and can quote from memory. I truly respect those people. I am just starting my third year as an official so I know I have a long way to go. Nevertheless, thanks to everyone for helping us noobs work through scenarios. And if you were being condescending, stop it.

This is my 17th year and will be my 17th doing varsity and it has been about 10 years I have done college. I go to college games every single year to get better and so I can see plays or to just improve on my game. I also am a clinician with my state as along with being on numerous boards for association and in leadership and teaching positions. So this is not my first rodeo, but this is also not just my background, there are others commenting on this topic with similar or more experience and I do not have to mention their names. You are basically telling very experienced officials you know more than them. And not only that, you used a very singular rule and not the other rules to make a point. That usually is a big mistake when you do that as there is a reason there is a definition for Airborne shooter and another for Legal Guarding Position, Continuous Motion and even Verticality. All of those rules apply in this play, not just the one reference you gave.

Now I am going to assume because of your experience level you are using terms that do not apply to the actual rule like saying, "The defender caused the contact." Actually it is not about who causes contact, it is about who is in a legal position and what they can do relative to having the ball and not having the ball. That is why I stated that if this was not a shot the contact still would have been on the defender and being airborne would have been irrelevant to the foul being called other than to determine if we are giving Love shots or not. I would still have a foul on the defender if Love could have dribbled a step or two would have moved in a way that the contact took place. The defender gave up his right to that position.

Also I would hope that you do not use this forum or any forum to learn rules. This is a place to discuss rules, but learning rules is about you getting in the rulebook and casebook and reading interpretations. We might discuss things associated with the rules, but we do not always discuss things that should be learned from IMO.

Hey, if you think you know a lot after 3 years be my guest. I was there you were too at one point and learned the more I do this how much others around me know or what I can learn from them. Now if that makes me condescending to question your limited reference to the rules and the fact that very experienced officials are also questioning those references you gave, then so be it. Honestly that is your issue if you cannot stand by your reference. If you cannot do it here, what do you think a coach is going to do? Then what you do think the assignor/supervisor is going to ask you when he/she sees the play in question? This is a tough business and if this bothers you then you will only figure this out the longer you do this thing we all love.

Peace