PC foul?

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

According you and a fellow from Oklahoma, A1 would be responsible for moving into the path of an airborne defender, right?

My point was that Love extended into the path of the defender illegally, which, in your scenario the ball handler was still in a legal position. I would retract that statement now after realizing that an airborne shooter is considered airborne even though they may be on the ground but are in the act of shooting. But now I am confused becuase I have no idea what the H-E double hockey sticks Bob is referring to.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

My point was that Love extended into the path of the defender illegally ...

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?

I am still waiting for an answer to this question.

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am still waiting for an answer to this question.

Peace

Not quite sure I understand what you are asking.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Not quite sure I understand what you are asking.

You must did not realize I was commenting on the question that BNR asked those that suggested a PC foul should be called?

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

This is what I said, and it is different than the scenario you put up. The difference is the offense jumping into the defensive player. I understand that there is a lot of experience on here and I am not saying I am right, just discussing.

Here's one to discuss then:

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Not quite sure I understand what you are asking.

JRut was commenting on the above question.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Here's one to discuss then:

What if this were 3 feet from the basket and Love leaned/jumped forward to flip the ball off the glass. Would that make the legality of the contact any different?





JRut was commenting on the above question.

If the question is asking whether it matters 3 feet from the basket or from the 3 point arc, I don't think so. Still a foul on the defender.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

My point was that Love extended into the path of the defender illegally, which, in your scenario the ball handler was still in a legal position. I would retract that statement now after realizing that an airborne shooter is considered airborne even though they may be on the ground but are in the act of shooting. But now I am confused becuase I have no idea what the H-E double hockey sticks Bob is referring to.

A player who is on the ground cannot, by definition, be an airborne shooter. A player holding the ball cannot, by definition, be an airborne shooter (but s/he can be in the act of shooting).

A player who has released the ball on a try is no longer in the act of shooting, unless he or she is an airborne shooter.

None of the above matters (I don't think) on this particular play, but can matter on different plays. Your (apparent) misunderstanding of the two definitions (and, iirc, other definitions) could cause you to rule incorrectly.

So, my gentle suggestion would be to read the book more (and read for greater understanding) and post less (it's NOT my suggestion that you stop posting altogether).

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A player who is on the ground cannot, by definition, be an airborne shooter. A player holding the ball cannot, by definition, be an airborne shooter (but s/he can be in the act of shooting).

A player who has released the ball on a try is no longer in the act of shooting, unless he or she is an airborne shooter.

None of the above matters (I don't think) on this particular play, but can matter on different plays. Your (apparent) misunderstanding of the two definitions (and, iirc, other definitions) could cause you to rule incorrectly.

So, my gentle suggestion would be to read the book more (and read for greater understanding) and post less (it's NOT my suggestion that you stop posting altogether).

I see the difference between act of shooting and airborne shooter. I read the book plenty. Dozens of hours every week including the off season. I only have 220 posts in 1 year. That isn't very many. What is the point of this forum if we can't ask our questions and talk through scenarios.