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

[Judtech]

Who initiated contact?

[deecee]

Good call and good job of the offensive player drawing a foul from a defender who went for the pump fake. There are many instances where players offensive and defensive players jump into each other during a shot and almost always its a foul on the defense.

If the defender followed the rule of verticality then I would agree that this call was incorrect, but since he didn't the onus for contact IMO is on him.

[Raymond]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Who initiated contact?

The defender when they jumped across the path of the shooter. Good foul call. I'll call that every time.

[JRutledge]

From a fan point of few, obviously I do not want the call. But as an official, it was absolutely the right and only call. The defender committed too early and it was a good play by the shooter (MOP BTW). He was doing this all weekend to both Wichita State and Michigan more than once in each game.

Peace

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The defender when they jumped across the path of the shooter. Good foul call. I'll call that every time.

What exactly is 'the path' of a shooter? Assuming that is different from the path of a dribbler.....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

What exactly is 'the path' of a shooter? Assuming that is different from the path of a dribbler.....

It is whichever way he wants to go where a defender has not legally obtained a position.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is whichever way he wants to go where a defender has not legally obtained a position.

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 onus is on the offenvise player to avoid contact. Maybe older wording, but I think fits this specific play perfectly....

[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

[#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".

[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....

[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

[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