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

[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

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

...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.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Talk about leaps in logic.

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....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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....

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.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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 places.

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?

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