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

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Ok, I am going to get blasted for this, but. I hate this call. There isn't going to be any contact by the defense. The contact only happens because the offensive player jumps into the defensive player.

What contact?

[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.

[JRutledge]

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 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

[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

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 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...

[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

[Camron Rust]

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.

The shooter gets to chose how they shoot the ball. The defense has to defend it legally. If the shooter wants to trap the defender in a bad position, the defender has to be smart enough to avoid it.

[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 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.

[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.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

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.