Michigan-Louisville shooting foul clip (Hancock/Burke 1st half)

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I'm looking through the books, can't find what I'm looking for, but I know somewhere I've read that the honous is on the offenvise player to avoid contact. Maybe older wording, but I think fits this specific play perfectly....

Let us know if you find "honous" in any book you have from the bible to the rule book and possibly the dictionary

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So when a shooter fades away or jumps at an angle, that is not a foul when contact occurs because they normally jump in another direction? I guess by that logic we should never call a foul on a jump shooter that tries to make a lay up based on normality of the player involved.

Peace

You can give general situations all day. I can only comment on specific plays, like this one. Each play is different and unique coach....

On this play I am applying the incidental contact rule based on what is normal offensive movement of a shooter in W11's position.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So normal offensive movement is anything the shooter chooses to do? I disagree. That logic removes the necessity of putting 'normal offensive movement' in the rule book then, because nothing is abnormal. Sorry, a shooter jumping sideways towards a defender to shoot the ball is abnormal. If anything, wouldn't common sense say that if he's going to jump sideways, he would have jumped the other way, away from the defender?

I'm looking through the books, can't find what I'm looking for, but I know somewhere I've read that the honous is on the offenvise player to avoid contact. Maybe older wording, but I think fits this specific play perfectly....

Well that reference only applies to incidental contact. You also cannot forget what is legal for a defender to do either in the rulebook. And when contact occurs and the defender is not legal, they are responsible. That is why the rules talks about what is legal for the defender to do and when.

Peace

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Let us know if you find "honous" in any book you have from the bible to the rule book and possibly the dictionary

It's on the same page as "tummy" and "crouch".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

You can give general situations all day. I can only comment on specific plays, like this one. Each play is different and unique coach....

On this play I am applying the incidental contact rule based on what is normal offensive movement of a shooter in W11's position.

I only gave those examples because you are using "normal" as if we have to judge what is normal based on how they jump or shoot. That sounds like an irrelevant point to me.

Peace

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Let us know if you find "honous" in any book you have from the bible to the rule book and possibly the dictionary

Damn, thought I'd gotten away from my grammar teacher... I fixed it Mrs. Belcher....

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

W11 leans left into the defender before starting shooting motion. That was NOT normal offensive movement by W11, thus 4-27-3 applies. W11 could have easily gone straight vertical, as he did for every other shot he took in this game, and there would not have been any contact made by the defender.

So I will post again:
So instead of jumping what if the offensive player took one dribble over to that spot and the defensive player landed on him? Would you still not want a foul called?

If the defensive player stays vertical he doesn't have to worry about a foul call.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I only gave those examples because you are using "normal" as if we have to judge what is normal based on how they jump or shoot. That sounds like an irrelevant point to me.

Peace

I am only using 'normal' because the rule books uses 'normal'. No other reason...

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Damn, thought I'd gotten away from my grammar teacher... I fixed it Mrs. Belcher....

Apparently the academic standards at IU aren't what they once were

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I am only using 'normal' because the rule books uses 'normal'. No other reason...

The book talks about normal movement being changed because of contact. It does not say that the movement before the contact has to be "normal." The rule talks about movement when contact occurs. This is why your reference does not wash with me and others. There is nothing in the rules that says that a player cannot fake and move to allow himself to be contacted. If it did I am sure there would be a case play or A.R to justify your point of view. And the NCAA would have also used video to illustrate that point as well considering these kinds of fouls are called often.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

Sucked in his gut...curved his spine to make an inverted C.....I don't know how he did it, but the camera angles provided doesn't show any contact. Only results that lead the majority to think there must have been contact.

Unfortunately there's no angle from either endline to examine. From the angle above you can't tell if there is or isn't contact.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

I hold myself to the following standard: Work your arse off to be in position to make calls (move to improve), BUT, never call what can't be seen (aka make shit up aka guessing/ASSuming).

If I can't tell a partner, assignor or a coach what I had - I'm not blowing my whisle.

Then why are you guessing on this one?

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So I will post again:
So instead of jumping what if the offensive player took one dribble over to that spot and the defensive player landed on him? Would you still not want a foul called?

If the defensive player stays vertical he doesn't have to worry about a foul call.

So are we only protecting an offensive player who's in the air, allowing him to land, without someone stepping underneath him?

Not me, that philosophy applies to both an offensive and a defensive player.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

...I'm looking through the books, can't find what I'm looking for, but I know somewhere I've read that the onus is on the offenvise player to avoid contact. Maybe older wording, but I think fits this specific play perfectly....

The only rule remotely close to what you are talking about is when there is less than 3ft between the defender and the side/end line and the offensive player tries to squeeze through. Definitely has nothing to do with this play. Rule 4-7

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So are we only protecting an offensive player who's in the air, allowing him to land, without someone stepping underneath him?

Not me, that philosophy applies to both an offensive and a defensive player.

So you think that if a defender gets in the air first, they get the right to land?

Lets say you have a shooter driving from the top of the key and you have a defender rotating from the corner. The defender, while running to get in front of the shooter jumps. Then the shooter continues and jumps (maybe even stepping to the side to get a better angle, but could have easily pulled up for a mid-range jumper too). The two collide. Do you think the defender is legal because they got in the air first? Seems like that is what you're claiming. And you would be correct if the shooter was guarding the defender or setting a screen on the defender, but that isn't what is happening.