PC foul?
 

A colleague of mine called my attention to this video, so what are the thoughts of those here?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...1473--nba.html

<div><iframe frameborder="0" width="576" height="324" src="http://d.yimg.com/nl/yahoo sports/site/player.html#browseCarouselUI=hide&startScreenCarou selUI=hide&shareUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.yahoo.com% 2Fvideo%2Fplayer%2Fnba%2FFeatured%2F31209473&vid=3 1209473"></iframe></div>

Also, one of our own is working this game. ;)

And I have a foul on the defense.

I guess I'm missing the clip. I just keep getting highlights and I don't see a crash.

Edit: If it's the one above by APG, I have a foul on the defender.

Thanks for embedding the video.

Why do you judge that to be a foul by the defender? Please give your rationale.

What if the action were exactly the same, but we gave the ball to the other player? Would that change your opinion?

Defensive player coming from behind is responsible for the contact.

Defensive player does not have legal guarding position. Defensive player is moving toward his opponent at the time of contact. Yes the offensive player may have leaned a little bit, but IMO there would have been contact by the defensive player anyhow and the offensive player does not do anything overt in creating the contact.

Preface: I wish to analyze this play using NFHS rules. I don't care what the ruling is in an NBA game.

Is the defender really coming from behind or the side? Secondly, isn't that rule for players moving in the same path and direction?

Is LGP needed for this play? We have an airborne player and an opponent. I guess that we can discuss verticality, but it doesn't appear to me that either player remained in his vertical plane.


Both of you please answer this question.

If an offensive player and defensive player are moving toward each other, then the greater responsibility for the contact is going to be on the defender. I'm not sure what your trying to ask in your hypothetical. Are you asking us to judge the play as if the shooter was in the GSW's defender position and the defender was in Love's position and their actions were the exact same?

Interesting thought. I'm not sure that 4-23-3c applies to an airborne player. Which has more weight in a situation such as this--4-23-3c or 4-23-1.

Yep, that is what I am asking you to consider. I'm trying to discover if people are giving additional rights to the player with the ball. It seems to me that in the case of a collision such as this, it shouldn't matter which player, if either, has the ball. The foul should be based upon the actions of the players and the presence of the ball isn't relevant.

I see this point.

From what I see, the defender is responsible for contact for being a bit reckless, and the shooter is clearly responsible for contact from his leaning in (which was more than "a little").

Here's a novel idea: double foul, before the release. Get 'em both, and give blue the ball back on the sideline.

Player Control. The defense would have avoided the contact had the shooter gone straight up. He jumped into the defensive player. Offense initiated all the contact.

Shooting foul all the way. Defender not in LGP and the movement by the shooter did nothing to cause contact IMO.

Peace

The movement by the shooter caused all the contact.

Shooting foul on the defense.

Nothing the defender did caused any contact? If I were the offensive coach, I don't think I'd accept that explanation.

Did the offensive player jump straight up, or did he go outside his vertical plane? He jumped into the defensive player. The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the rules.

Watch the clip again. If the shooter goes straight up, there will be no contact. He jumps into the defender creating the contact.

I would probably have a foul still on the defender. I can't speak for others but I'm not granting the offensive player additional rights because he has the ball. I'm basing it on the action of the defender. I have a defensive player and offensive player moving toward each other. Defensive player is more responsible for the contact...and since the offensive player didn't do anything like lead with an elbow/forearm/kick out w/the leg, etc, I have a foul on the defender.

My point is that in no way does the defender jump straight up, either. He jumped into the defensive player, sure, but the defender also jumps into the shooter.

Respectfully disagree. If the shooter goes straight up, it looks to me that contact will be avoided.

I've got to consider an illegal ball screen.

I agree. The defender was trying to get to a spot, and the shooter's movements were premeditated in order to make contact. I may have gone with free throws live, but on replay, I'm not convinced.

I don't think that has much bearing, as the same could be said about the defender.

While in some cases, I can see calling a foul on the offense when they deliberately jump towards an airborne shooter, it is still the defender who must be in the path of the opponent facing with feet down in order to have LGP. In this case, the step to make that shot attempt was roughly towards the basket....the offensive player took a path which the defender didn't yet have a legal right to occupy. I have a block in this example.

This would be no different than a defender rotating from the corner to cut off a drive from the top of the key and jumping across the shooter's path before the shooter went up. The defender doesn't get the right to a spot by getting airborne first.

If the defender was sailing by from front to back and was clearly going to pass behind the shooter but the shooter jumped back in a direction a shooter wouldn't normally take, I could see a PC foul.

IMO, this is the best explanation on this topic. What I've always been told is that a defender can have LGP and still move upwards (i.e. jump) or backwards. But, if a defender is moving sideways (and doesn't get LPG first) or forward in the path of an offensive player, blocking charge.

EDIT: just noticed I said "blocking charge". I meant to say blocking foul.

I am going with a defensive foul. now who thinks the offensive player gets shots? It appears in the video that the official behind the play is signaling the foul was "on the ground."

I don't use the phrase "on the ground". A player can be still touching the floor (which is what on the ground means) and still be in the act of shooting.

The official was signalling that the shooter was shooting a 2-point attempt - his right foot was still in contact with the floor when he was fouled and before he became airborne. He did this because this particular shooter was previously behind the arc and executed a move to draw a "foul" - the shooter even looked over his right shoulder to find the defender. The proof is that the official extended two fingers towards the ground where the right foot was located.

I guess if you mean an airborne defender that committed to block a shot is totally responsible for all contact in this case. Again this is not about who really was the cause, the defender is not in a legal position. The shooter has a right to shoot the ball and jump in all kinds of ways to do so.

Peace

You might be right. I did see the official's hand point down but I thought that was more for pointing that the right foot was inside the arc, only a two points try.

I'm shocked to see you write that. I disagree 100%. People are going to have different opinions about the video and that is why I posted it, but very few learned basketball officials are going to agree with your comment above.

I truly hope that this thread opens some eyes to what I believe is an incorrect mentality shown by many officials to favor the player with the ball and penalize defenders. I hope that people will take some time to consider which player is actually infringing upon the rules as written and just go with what they have always seen or been told.

The play-by-play of this game:


02:42 Landry Foul: Shooting (1 PF) (2 FTA)
Love Free Throw 1 of 2 Missed 02:42
Team Rebound 02:42
Stiemsma Substitution replaced by Cunningham 02:42
Love Free Throw 2 of 2 Missed 02:42

So switching who has the ball would cause you to change who is charged with the foul, yet you write that you aren't basing your call on that! I can't see how you can reconcile the two.

Going to have to question the thought process for a couple of things in here.
When does an airborne player have the right to a landing space? I was always taught that if a space was unoccupied then anyone had a right to it as long as he got there first and without causing illegal contact. So of a defender goes airborne and will land in a certain location, can an offensive player run over to that spot or a spot in between and cause the defender to foul?
You state that this defender didn't have a right to that path. Why not? Was it occupied when he jumped? You write that he doesn't get the right to his path by going airborne first. I don't believe that is correct, but if it is, then how does he obtain this right?

You give an example of a player driving to the basket along the endline and a defender jumping into that path. You have a defensive foul. Now reverse which player has the ball. Would you allow a defender to run along the endline and take away his landing space after he has already jumped?

Taught this as well. And there was no mention that this doesn't apply if a shooter might use part of this space in a yet-to-occur shot attempt.

When he goes straight up.

Yes. You are were you were until you get where you're going. The airborne defender doesn't have the space where he will land until he actually lands. If the offensive player beats him to that space without illegally contacting anyone, it's the offensive player's space. When the defender arrives, he will be second to the space and will have illegally contacted the offensive player.

I don't understand how or why you're extending the right to a spot to a right to a path.

For me this is contact by a defender who approached from behind and pushing under 10-6-6.

Is everyone considering it a pass when he bounces the ball off his teammate at the start of the clip? Any consideration at all for illegal dribble for having his pivot foot off the floor when he pushes the ball?

Please don't cause confusion in this thread with this question. If you want to discuss that point, please start another thread.

A dribble goes to the floor. This is clearly a pass and touched another player.

Don't overthink...it's a pass. And it was a great job by the offensive player of getting himself out of a jam.

My answer doesn't have the prerequisite of having the ball. It just happens that in the example play, and in your hypothetical, one player has the ball. If you looked at what I said, I said the defensive player has the greater responsibility for contact when both an offensive player and defensive player are moving toward each other.

Let me ask this, what's the call if neither player has the ball?

4-23 Gurading is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an OFFENSIVE opponent.

So, guarding is an act by the defense.

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)

So, yes, which player has the ball can be a consideration.

I have a foul on the defense.

How about you answer a question? (I know you are a lawyer and used to asking all the questions without ever having to answer one yourself).


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

Probably a no call...then again, this play doesn't happen if one of the players doesn't have the ball, so it's a moot point.

Yes it could. Let's assume this play is close to the endline and instead of Kevin Love, A1 = Derek Williams, and A1 is elevating to catch an alley-oop.

I was talking about the specific play in the OP...but I should have worded it better...these type of plays involve a play on the ball.

After watching this several times and looking at the rulebook. Neither player stays within his vertical plane. Maybe it is a no call. Had the offense gone straight up and stayed in his vertical plane, than yes a foul on the defense would be warranted, but he doesn't he jumps outside of his vertical plane.

No rule requires a player to remain in his "vertical plane." Doing so is no guarantee that a player's actions are legal, and failing to do so is not as such illegal. This worry is a red herring.

The shooter is allowed to drive to the basket, and the defender to block his progress, provided each does so legally.

And whether their movements leading up to contact are legal is, of course, the question.

Really? If the offense and defense both jump straight up and are vertical, and the offensive player extends his arm to clear out the defense, he has not stayed in his vertical plane. Same for the defense, they may extend their arms but must stay in their vertical plane when doing so.

"Leaving the vertical plane" (sic) is not, in and of itself, an infraction. "Leaving the vertical plane and causing contact" might be.

That was the point.

I was thinking of screens, actually, either offensive or defensive (trying to slow the cutter).

Add to the the ball screen, which is what this play looks like to me.

But he is not screening, he is going airborne towards the basket for a try.

How about this play:

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?

Agreed. In the video, the defense jumps and has a right to come down, the offense jumps out of his vertical plane and creates the contact. Turn it around. What if the offense jumps and prior to returning to the floor the defense jumps out of his vertical plane and creates contact with the offense. We have a foul on the defense.

BTW does Love jump towards the basket or sideways? I think sideways.

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?

I disagree. If he wanted the best shot, he just had to hold a beat and let the defender pass. Instead, he intentionally placed himself in the path of a moving opponent without the ball, giving him neither time nor distance.

Love intentionally placed himself in the path of a moving opponent without the ball giving him neither time nor distance

Reference, please. Not saying you're wrong, I just can't place it in my mind's eye copy of the rule book.

I don't know that its in there. Just an assumption that an airborne player has the right to land without someone contacting him. I am probably wrong.


Maybe 4-19-1.

I don't use that phrase or signal either for the same reasons you mention above (not to mention it isn't an approved mechanic). I was just pointing out the fact that it looked like that was what the official was calling in the video, although looking at it again, I think your reading of what the official was communicating is more correct.

4-19-1 says "airborne shooter". The defensive player cannot be an airborne shooter (or at least he isn't in this play).

There is no doubt that the official in the play (Marc Davis) is signaling that the try is for 2 and that the shooter will have two shoots. If he was going to communicate the foul was before the player was in the act of shooting, he would have waved off the shot.

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.

I was about to bring this up as well.

It also says, A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.

Is jumping into the air and being able to land without the offensive causing contact, a normal defensive movement, is the question.

LGP is not at play when the defender is moving towards the shooter at contact.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

No.

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.

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.

When contact occurred, he was moving towards the shooter.

The question to me is whether screening rules or guarding rules take precedence.

I'm inclined to side with guarding rules here since B7 was clearly guarding and attempting to guard A1. If B had been standing directly in front of Love and jumped first, towards Love, I don't think we'd be discussing this so long.

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

He wasn't vertical, though. He jumped in the direction of the shooter.

I'm amused by this thread. This is an easy, easy foul. I can't believe anyone would even entertain rewarding the defender for getting faked out this way.

Doesn't contact occur because the shooter jumped into the defender? If the shooter goes straight are we sure contact would have happened?

I did not quote your actual words. I simply was asking what rules basis for your argument. Because if that is the case then show at least one interpretation that supports your position? I doubt you will find one because when the defender is not in a LGP, they are considered to be the person that has fouled when the ball handler or shooter is involved. It would be one thing if he was vertical as a defender and the shooter jumped into him, but that is not what happen. The defender was already in a non-vertical or LGP situation and the shooter did what he has the right to do and jump in any direction. Now of the defender was in a LGP or vertical, then I would agree with you about the actions of the shooter or Kevin Love in this play. That is not what happened and not what I would call. At some point common sense also has to reign in this situation.

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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?"

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

No, it wouldn't have, but the defender jumped horizontally in an attempt to guard the shooter. It's not necessarily about who initiates contact?

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

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.

And Love jumps sideways, not forward. In this particular case he caused the contact.

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.

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.

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

Why does the offense get to jump out of their vertical space, but not the defense? Just seems we always penalize the defense when creating contact, well Love creates this contact, and is more responsible for the contact, so we either have PC, or nothing.

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

Who cares, they just do.

When a player shoots a lay-up isn't he jumping outside his vertical plane? If a defender jumps at the same time from the other side of the basket and they collide are you going to "no call" it b/c the A1 was not vertical?

I did not say they necessarily do. But when the rules spend a lot of time talking about defenders and their LGP. The rules does not spend that same time talking about legal position for a ball handler. Also there is a reason their is a rule for an airborne shooter and if a defender is in a LGP, then any contact would be on the ball handler or shooter. I just find your stance laughable on so many levels. You can have a foul on any ball handler if they do something outside of their legal right, but a defender that is jumping and not legal as no special protection. The shooter does have some special protection and even the ball handler when they say it is a foul to simply put hands on the dribbler.

Peace

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". :D

Great discussion on this topic BTW. I just honestly believe that the contact would have been avoided. Next I look at who is more responsible for this contact, and on this particular play I believe the offense is and for that reason I would go PC or nothing. Then just take my butt chewing from whichever coach I get it from!!;)

Yep.

+1000

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.

Simple question.
 

So the player does this 5 feet from the basket and gives a fake and the defender goes airborne, then the shooter jumps to make sure that contact takes place, you are calling a PC foul?

Peace

This is why I don't focus too much on who initiated the contact. Sometimes a defender makes a mistake that leaves him wide open to this play.

I don't usually either, but I think on this play it does play a factor.