The word 'changed' does not appear once in Section 27 on Incidental Contact. However, I do understand your position and points you've made. I would really like to see further clarification on these type of plays.

If B1 is standing shoulder to shoulder with A1, who has the ball, and A1 jumps into B1 and shoots the ball. To you that is a shooting foul on B1 because B1 doesn't have LGP on A1, correct?

Talk about leaps in logic. :rolleyes:

I think I already answered, but yes, the defender has a right to land. If he doesn't have that right, aren't we not putting that player's safety at risk? Any player in the air is vulnerable, doesn't matter if a ball is in his hands or not. Making intentional contact with that player before that player lands is dangerous and should not be rewarded.

So this is no longer about the rules but rather what certain fans believe should be the rule. I get it now.

Well for the record we are not talking about a NF play. We are talking about a NCAA play which has a little different wording but not by much (4-40, not 4-27).

I also do not see the misunderstanding here. I simply think and know from experience and what has been listed under NF or NCAA rules interpretations from their literature there is no such "equal" situation when a defender is not in a legal position. There is a reason the defender is listed as to what is legal and not legal. When you are coming forward and you contact a ball handler or shooter, then the responsibility for the contact is on the defender if it puts the ball handler at a disadvantage. If you are going to reference on part of the rule, then reference the other relevant parts too. You have to look at what is legal guarding position, what an airborne shooter can do and how rules are interpreted by the NCAA (or NF).

Peace

Not really. Those that suggest the OP is a defensive foul is because the defender never had LGP. I am giving another example of where a defender does not have LGP, and verifying that this would also be a defensive foul. Pretty straightforward....

The huge difference is you have a moving defender in the OP. Your situation does not have a moving defender. LGP grants the right to be moving at the point of contact, within restrictions.

I never mentioned LGP once. It's a foul b/c the defender was not vertical and contacted the offensive player while coming down. Same as it would be a foul if the Hancock had taken a dribble to his left and the Burke had landed on him.

I agree the defender was not vertical, but I see the offensive player initiating the contact. I do not support the premise that just because a defender is in the air, may not have LGP, that any contact made is caused by the defender and should be penalized as such. To do so would put a player's safety at risk. In you example, Burke's safety would be at risk and Hancock should not be rewarded for intentionally doing so.

Are we only concerned about player safety when it comes to contact above the shoulders?

By rule, yes, the coaches/ADs/commissioners have only emphasized above the shoulder contact in the rule book.

They all seem to be happy with the premise that the play in question is a foul.

This is where you're wrong. A defender doesn't have the right to land if doing so takes away from the opponents right to perform their actions.

The rules on airborne players are in relation to "guarding". They protect offensive players from being guarded illegally. They don't protect defensive players.

The defender has the responsibility to play defense within the guidelines of legal guarding. Jumping laterally is not within those guidelines. The only jump that is protected for the defender is a vertical jump.

This defender was moving but never had LGP. Even if he had LGP, jumping sideways and towards the shooter removes the protection of LGP. Any contact that happens is the responsibility of the defender.

Didn't I just say that???

I'm not guessing. Rather, I'm confirming the camera angle does not show any contact. haha! :p

And since you can't tell, you declare the call to be wrong????:rolleyes:

I think it's a no call from the angle the cameras show.