Offensive Leg Kick Out on 3pt Shot
 

I have seen this call quite a few times in the past, so can someone more experienced please explain the rationale behind it? I saw a play that reminded me of it in the first half of the Okla. St. vs. Va. Tech game today, it was not exactly as the one below, but the one below is where my question comes from. I will do my best to explain it well:

A1 has both feet on the ground preparing to shoot a 3-pointer, B1 is running to contest the shot in an established path perpendicular to A1 that will run him across A1's face. A1 rises to shoot and kicks his leg forward into the path of B1, B1 hits the leg with no other contact and is called for the defensive foul.

Why is that not an offensive foul or a no-call?

Added by APG for those reading the thread from the beginning:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jj9L_kWmcZ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've seen it infrequently on the HS level.
A. As to the former, it is.
B. As to the latter, it isn't.

All speculation.
 

You need to ask the official that made the call. No one here is going to know for sure why anyone makes a call unless you ask them. I also did not see the play, and even if I did I would have the same answer. Maybe the official felt the defender did more than run into the leg?

Peace

That's what my feeling was as well, just wanted more experienced input.

Point taken, but change it from a play seen to strictly being based on the now hypothetical scenario as written, should that be a defensive foul?

Don't take my response as from one that fulfills that criteria. I just happened to be the one who had time to answer most quickly. Responses from those from whom your really need to hear have or will most assuredly follow mine. :)

I got guff from the coach when I banged the shooter for an offensive foul on a play similar to what you have described. But I'm confident the illegal contact was caused not by the defense. The shooter "hindered an opponent from performing normal defensive...movements" (4-19-1), i.e., running in front of a guy whose leg was sticking out there at a 90 degree angle from his body. That seems to fit 10-6-1, "...by bending his/her body into other than a normal position".

Perhaps you could ask APG to post the play assuming you know approximately when it occurred in the game.

It was 10:05 in the first half, Okla. St. v. Va. Tech, 12/1/12 on ESPN3 (or WatchESPN or whatever its called now).

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jj9L_kWmcZ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks

Could be a symptom of watching.it on a four inch screen, but I'm not convinced the.defender wouldn't have hit the shooter anyway.

This video might be a poor representation of the scenario I laid out in text, it more or less triggered me remembering that I have seen the call I described many times in the past and never being able to justify it by the rulebook.

I do not see a foul.

Ok, you've got a defender moving towards the shooter, who has no vertical restriction, and tripping the shooter. (There's your rule justification.)

If the shooter stuck his arm out as the defender went by and made contact, would you call a foul on the defender?

Possibly.....the ball that is being shot is often at the end of those arm.

For me, it would really depend on how far out that leg was extended. There is some amount that i would consider reasonable for a given shot and some greater amount that I would not.

In the video shown above with as much as I could see in the limited views, I wouldn't call an offensive foul and would probably call one on the defender. The shooters foot was not unreasonably extended as Reggie Miller frequently did and the defender did, with no semblance of LGP, move such that he clipped his foot and cause him to fall.